Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ALMSHOUSES (INVESTMENT) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

NORTH DEVON WATER BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (NUCLEAR TESTS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if in view of the progress made by the French Government in the production of a hydrogen bomb and the preparations for testing it, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Governments of the United States of America and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that France be invited to participate in the negotiations at Geneva for the termination of nuclear tests.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. I do not think it practicable to enlarge the composition of this conference.

Mr. Brockway: Is not it rather farcical that whilst America, Russia and Britain are considering the termination of these tests the French Government should be producing this hydrogen bomb and should be planning their first test? Is not there some way in which the Government can bring France into association with these negotiations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is really addressed to the French Government. In regard to the second part, of course it is our wish that as soon as we have an agreement at Geneva we

should persuade as many other countries in the world as we can, including France, to undertake the same obligation.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is not this proof of the fears of many of us that this weapon would now be developed in more and more countries? Would it not be better, therefore, to open consultations with France to see whether she will agree with us that the production of this weapon should be restricted to America and the Soviet Union?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The best method of proceeding is, I think, to continue our negotiations with America and Russia to get agreement to suspend nuclear-weapon tests and then to persuade other countries in the world to undertake the same obligation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If the Minister of State does not succeed in getting agreement within measurable time, would not it be wiser to call in more nations, since this is a matter of interest not only to France but to all the nations of the world?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That consideration is certainly to be borne in mind.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the French Government regarding its intention to establish a nuclear weapons testing station at Kerguelen Island, in view of the danger of radioactive fall-out over British Protectorates in South Africa because Kerguelen is in a cyclone belt where winds reach 140 miles an hour.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): I understand that a Press report about French plans to test a nuclear device at Kerguelen Island was officially denied in Paris at the time of its publication.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that this report has aroused considerable disquiet throughout South Africa and among the populations of our Protectorates? Is he aware that I hope the denial which he has now made will receive wide publicity there, so that that disquiet may be eased?

Mr. Allan: I quite agree, but I have not made a denial on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I said that the French Government denied it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

United Kingdom and Soviet Notes

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now completed his discussions with other Western Governments on the reunification of Germany; and what proposals he intends to put forward in the forthcoming discussions with the Soviet Government.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals for a reduction and withdrawal of foreign armed forces in Germany he will put forward in the proposed discussions on a German Peace Treaty.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of recent proposals affecting the settlement of outstanding problems in Central Europe, what further consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the revised Rapacki plan for a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe;
(2) whether the discussions with other interested Governments on various possible methods of achieving the reunification of Germany have now been completed; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On 16th February Her Majesty's Government sent a Note to the Soviet Government proposing a conference of the Foreign Ministers of the Soviet Union, France, the United States and the United Kingdom to deal with the problem of Germany in all its aspects and implications. The text of this Note, together with the Soviet Note of 10th January to which it replies, have been published today as Command Paper 670. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that at such a conference neither side should seek to impose a veto on specific subjects to be discussed. We are now consulting our Allies in preparing the Western position and this will be stated at the conference.

Mr. Swingler: The negotiation has been going on for some time. Is not it a fact that the Note which has been delivered appears to contain no constructive proposal at all for the solution of this problem, while it throws cold water on the proposals that have been made by the Soviet Union? Apparently, as the result of the consultations that have been

taking place for many weeks, no proposals are being put forward by the Western Powers in regard to the settlement of the German problem or the problem of European security.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We have proposed that in the near future there should be a meeting of Foreign Ministers and, as I said in my original Answer, our proposals will be put at that conference.

Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman take a little message from me to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, by asking him to let the good sense that guided him in his Glasgow speech, due perhaps to his environment, guide him during his sojourn in Russia, not the outmoded concept of the Bagdad Pact? Will the Foreign Secretary take with him this little pamphlet to guide him during the time he is in Russia? I will send it to him.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the hon. Gentleman sends it, my right hon. and learned Friend will probably receive it.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not a great disadvantage that, while the Russians have put forward fairly detailed proposals which can be considered by world public opinion, no similar proposals have come from the Western side? Would it not be an advantage if the British Government could put forward proposals, so that public opinion may have an opportunity of considering both sides?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that a great many of these matters could be discussed more fruitfully in the debate tomorrow than by Question and Answer today.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Warbey.

Mr. Warbey: Question No. 7.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Questions No. 7 and 8 have been answered.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that Question No. 8 had been answered with No. 3, but not Question No. 7. As my Question No. 7 deals specifically with the Rapacki Plan, on which there have been no supplementary questions at all, may I put one on that?

Mr. Speaker: I think I was in error here in calling the hon. Member. I thought the Minister of State answered Question No. 9, with the earlier Questions, but in fact I now find he answered Questions No. 7 and No. 8.

Peace Treaty

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government now accepts the Potsdam Agreement as a basis for discussing the provisions of a German Peace Treaty.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Those matters which the Potsdam Agreement reserved for decision at a peace settlement will of course come up for consideration at any discussions about a Peace Treaty.

Mr. Swingler: Is the policy of Her Majesty's Government still based upon the principle embodied in the Potsdam Agreement, namely, the demilitarisation of Germany? Is that still agreed?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We still regard the Potsdam Agreement as valid, but the hon. Member will be aware that, owing to the history of the past ten years, many of the propositions stated in the Potsdam Agreement are no longer valid. That, of course, is true of the demilitarisation of Germany.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what policies will be put forward by Her Majesty's Government in the proposed discussions about a German Peace Treaty for preventing a resurgence of Nazism in Germany.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If such discussions take place this will be one of the points for consideration, but the hon. Member will be aware that responsibility for denazification was handed over to the German authorities in 1949.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people are very dissatisfied about the position on denazification? Is he aware that there are reports about the appointment of Nazi judges and prosecutors, the formation of an underground S.S. and the spread of anti-Semitic propaganda in various parts of Germany? Will Her Majesty's Government pay serious attention to these matters and ensure that they are reconsidered in any agreement about a German settlement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am, of course, aware of these reports, but I should say they are greatly exaggerated.

Mr. Gower: Is not it a fact that some of the alleged anti-Semitic propaganda has been discovered to be the work of Communists and is accepted as such by Jewish people themselves in Germany?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That may well be so.

British Military Base, Dortmund

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the unanimous protest passed by the Dortmund City Council against the projected establishment of a British military rocket base within the city limits, what steps he proposes to take to protect our troops against the possibility of further seious demonstrations from the local population.

Mr. R. Allan: None, Sir. The Federal Government have agreed to the stationing of the regiment at Dortmund.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister tell the House what are the respective degrees of responsibility between Her Majesty's Government and the German Federal Government for siting this base? Is not it the case that Lord Ismay made a declaration only recently to the effect that no regiment would be placed in or near industrial towns? Is not it also the case that the German Federal Parliament, as recently as February, 1957, passed a unanimous resolution declaring that no such stations would be placed in or near heavily populated towns?

Mr. Allan: That is a matter for the Federal Government to decide and they have agreed to the placing of this regiment there.

Mr. G. Brown: Since our troops are now there in a difficult situation, is the hon. Gentleman taking steps to put the responsibility for the protection of our troops firmly upon the Federal German Government?

Mr. Allan: I think that we can take it that the Federal Government are perfectly aware of their responsibility and that our troops are not in an impossible position. There has been one incident, after which the burgomaster told the commanding officer of the regiment that no


demonstrations were made against his troops.

Mr. Hynd: Is it the case that Herr Strauss himself protested against this siting and, therefore, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Federal Government are entirely responsible?

Mr. Allan: It is the decision of the Federal Government.

Krupp Deconcentration Agreement

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason Herr Alfred Krupp has been allowed another year in which to carry out the terms of the 1953 Deconcentration Agreement, under which he should have disposed of his steel and coal holdings by 31st January, 1958.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has made to the West German Government regarding its failure to ensure the implementation of Allied Law No. 27.

Mr. Bevan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the conditions which will need to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Mixed Committee constituted under the terms of the Bonn Settlement Convention before extensions of time are granted to Herr Krupp for the disposal of his holdings.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As my hon. Friend explained in his reply to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on 4th February, an extension of time has not been granted to Herr Krupp. No protest has been made to the Federal Government since the question of extensions of time in which to fulfil remaining obligations to sell under Allied High Commission Law Number 27 is to be considered by a Mixed Committee, as provided for in the Bonn Settlement Convention. This Committee can grant an extension of time if the applicant establishes that, without it, the securities could not, with the exercise of reasonable efforts, be disposed of on reasonable terms and on a basis compatible with the German public interest and without a disruptive effect on the German capital market.

Mr. Johnson: Will Her Majesty's Government oppose such an extension? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there

is already a great deal of public indignation at the lenient way in which this large-scale exploiter of slave labour, who was indirectly responsible for the loss of many British lives, has already been treated?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The most important thing is that we should carry out the terms of the Bonn Convention, which lays down that in a case of this kind a Mixed Committee should be set up. I think that to give judgment before the Mixed Committee has made any report would be quite wrong.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not it a fact that the family of Krupp had a very bad record before the First World War and also before the Second World War in building up the Hitler movement? Is not it a fact that Krupp has already begun to assemble military aircraft and that he is now taking a part in a large combine for military aircraft production?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The right hon. Gentleman has made a certain number of statements. I do not think I am called upon to comment on them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind that both in the House and in the country there is very deep feeling about this matter? I hope that the Government will express the feeling of the whole country about it.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We will certainly bear that in mind.

Berlin

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) to what extent, in preparation for exploring the Soviet point of view in Moscow, he has considered the official Soviet proposals for making West Berlin a free city and inviting United Nations agents to supervise on the spot the arrangements for maintaining the status of the free city and its communications with the West, as well as replacing Soviet by East German officials for the control of these communications;
(2) whether he will give an assurance that the Government will in no circumstances be a party to the use or threat of force to maintain access to West Berlin by direct action instead of by working on a de facto basis with East German officials replacing Soviet officials on the lines of communication.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: My right hon. and learned Friend has naturaly studied the proposals put forward by the Soviet Union. The views of Her Majesty's Government on these matters are set out in their Note of 31st December to the Soviet Government.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the hon. Member give an assurance that no force will be used to attempt to maintain communications with West Berlin in preference to allowing East German officials, as Soviet agents, to stamp documents for people travelling to and fro?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not the Question on the Order Paper or anything like it.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement he reached during his recent official discussions with Mr. Dulles regarding access to Berlin by the Western Powers on the transfer by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of its authority in Berlin to the East German authorities.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on 16th February.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Minister of State aware that on 9th February Mr. Dulles stated in Washington that agreement had been reached between the Powers on the points that
… we do not accept the substitution of East Germans for the Soviet Union in its responsibilities towards Berlin. … We are resolved that our position in and access to West Berlin shall be preserved"?
Mr. Dulles added that general agreement had been reached as to the procedures to be employed in case of physical resistance to the attempt to maintain communications with Berlin without accepting the substitution of East Germans for Soviet officials. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will scrupulously observe the obligations of the United Nations Charter concerning no use of force to settle disputes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The whole of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was, of course, a quotation, of which I am well aware.

Mr. Zilliacus: What is the answer?

Mr. Paget: Is it not the whole of our experience in dealing with Russia that the most dangerous manoeuvre one can make is a step backwards? Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend not to repeat the mistakes made by Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and to make quite clear to the Russians the risks they are running?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (NEUTRALITY)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what exchanges have taken place since the signature of the Austrian Peace Treaty between the signatory Powers and the Austrian Government with particular reference to the maintenance of Austrian neutrality.

Mr. R. Allan: In a constitutional law passed by the Austrian Parliament on 26th October, 1955, Austria declared of her own free will her perpetual neutrality. Her Majesty's Government formally recognised this neutrality, as did the other signatories of the Austrian State Treaty. There have been no further exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the Austrian Government on this particular matter.

Mr. Rankin: While accepting that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the principle as it has been applied to Austria and honoured by the guaranteeing Powers, even though the circumstances are not parallel, might effectively be applied in the case of Germany, if similar guarantees were given?

Mr. Allan: For reasons often stated in this House, there is a much greater difference here than the hon. Member has suggested and it is really a quite separate question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELAND (FISHING LIMITS AND TERRITORIAL WATERS)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement about negotiations with Iceland over the fishing limits and territorial waters.

Mr. R. Allan: I regret that I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on


26th January to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). The Icelandic Government have unfortunately not yet been prepared to accept any of the proposals which have been made.

Mr. Wall: Now that it is quite clear Her Majesty's ships can give adequate protection to our trawlers fishing on their lawful occasions and that there can be no real answer to this problem until the Conference on the Law of the Sea is reconvened, is there any chance of getting an agreement with Iceland and a truce until the Conference has reassembled?

Mr. Allan: My right hon. Friend has made that very proposal, but unfortunately there has been no response from the Icelandic Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on recent diplomatic negotiations concerning the future of Cyprus.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Her Majesty's Government hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly and I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to wait until then.

Mr. Robinson: While we are all profoundly hopeful that a solution will be found on the basis of independence in Cyprus, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that a solution on these lines could have been found four years ago if Her Majesty's Government had not always insisted on maintaining British sovereignty over the whole island?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think that is a true statement of the case. Anyway, I assure the hon. Member that we wish to make a statement as early as possible and I think that if a final statement cannot be made, an interim statement will be made this week on the present state of the negotiations.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the very important letter in The Times by Sir William Hayter two days ago?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary has already read it.

Mr. J. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend say anything further at this stage about the bases? Can he bear in mind, for example, that our use of them in the long term might be more securely guaranteed if we were in the position of a freeholder rather than that of a leaseholder?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already said that later this week a statement will be made on the present state of the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — KUWAIT

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent in the discharge of its obligations to protect Kuwait, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give assistance to the Ruler of Kuwait against internal subversion.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Her Majesty's Government intend to fulfil their obligations to protect Kuwait. I do not think a useful purpose would be served by trying to define the precise circumstances in which our protection might be required.

Mr. Grimond: While recognising the delicacy of this matter, may I ask if the Minister will agree that, if we are to defend Kuwait from subversion, the internal situation there is of interest to us and as much information as possible should be given to the people about democratic consultation and about economic progress? Secondly, is not it desirable that the people of this country should be much more fully informed about the obligations we have undertaken to these States all up and down the Gulf?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think this is a request for a rather longer statement about our relations with the sheikhdoms up and down the Gulf. Certainly I think it is a matter about which this House should be informed from time to time.

Mr. Paget: Is not the use of troops after the trouble has happened a very inefficient way of dealing with this sort of obligation, and is not it time that in these areas where our interest is vitally affected we should take a real interest


in the police arrangements because, so far as these are concerned, the sheiks' interests and our own are the same?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that there is a great deal in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTER SPACE (ROCKETS AND SATELLITES)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the achievement of international co-operation on the experimental projection of rockets into outer space.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As my right hon. Friend said on the 11th February, Her Majesty's Government regard international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space, including research of the kind envisaged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a matter of the greatest importance. Their policy is to work for the achievement of such co-operation in every way they can.

Mr. Henderson: Would not it be a useful first step in the direction of international co-operation if the Governments concerned were to agree to register with the United Nations their intention to project satellites and rockets into outer space?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will certainly bear in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the sale of arms to the former Government of Cuba, he will now review the general principle followed by Government Departments which authorise the supply of arms to Governments with whom Her Majesty's Government is in normal diplomatic relations.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The principles followed by the Government Departments which authorise the supply of arms abroad were explained by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, on 21st January. As a matter of general policy,

my right hon. and learned Friend has reviewed them and his conclusion is that they are sound.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government is designed to preserve a balance between our interests in this matter. On the one hand we must guard against British equipment being used to the direct detriment of our security, or to our indirect detriment through the disturbance of international relations and the peace. On the other hand we must look to the export interests of the shipbuilding, engineering and aircraft industries in the United Kingdom; which affect their prosperity and the level of employment.
The House will not, I think, disagree with these principles. As regards their application in particular instances, my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will continue to ensure that the responsible Departments give full weight to the political, strategic and economic factors in each case.

Mr. Henderson: In view of what has happened in Cuba, would not it be a good thing if the Government banned the sale of all arms to any Government the armed forces of which are actually engaged in putting down an insurrectionary movement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find himself in conflict with his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who wishes to step up our sale of armaments to Indonesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL (OIL PIPELINE)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Israel in regard to co-operating with that Government in constructing an oil pipeline from the Gulf of Aqaba large enough to permit the full-scale operation of the oil refinery at Haifa.

Mr. R. Allan: None, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Would my hon. Friend agree that we ought to take every possible step to safeguard our oil supplies in the event of emergency, and would not the construction of such a pipeline not only achieve this but be a great advantage to this country, to Israel and to the whole of Western Europe?

Mr. Allan: I understand that the Government of Israel are interested in constructing this pipeline. They have not made any approach to us for Governmental help on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAGDAD PACT

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the principal decisions, both military and economic, reached by the countries adhering to the Bagdad Pact at their recent conference.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 4th February to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence who attended the last meeting.

Mr. Philips Price: May we take it that economic decisions were arrived at at the Conference, and may I ask whether Iraq was in any way affected, or must we assume that Iraq is now out of it in all except name?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That certainly is the position since 14th July. Iraq is still legally a member of the Pact but has been taking no part in its deliberations. As regards progress on the economic side, I would say that that certainly has been considerable and an offer by Her Majesty's Government to spend £850,000 on economic development in the Pact area was very well received at the Conference.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence last week, when asked about the economic results of this Conference, asked the House to await a reply by the Foreign Secretary, and is it really sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to say now that he has nothing to add to a reply which asked us to await a reply?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I was not present at the time, but I understand that my right hon. Friend said that a communiqué would be issued which goes into some detail about the economic discussions which took place.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would it not be useful if the Minister of State could persuade his office to let us have a White Paper with all the decisions taken at the recent Conference, the context of

the Minister of Defence's speech and other explanations which would enable us to know what happened?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will look into that; and I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's request that we should make a detailed report about economic progress.

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress to date in economic co-operation between the member States of the Bagdad Pact.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note—and I think this answers the supplementary question just asked by the right hon. Gentleman—giving some details of the progress of economic cooperation between participating countries of the Pact.
Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the economic work of the Bagdad Pact, and are satisfied with the progress which has been made.

Mr. Hynd: Will not the Minister agree that the purpose of this Pact was to establish friendly and constructive cooperation between countries which had previously been isolated and in some cases hostile; that, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the fullest publicity should be given to every step in the direction of establishing peace and co-operation between these countries, and that that publicity has been sadly lacking in the past?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know whether publicity has been sadly lacking but I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Usborne: Had we not better contemplate changing the name of this Pact? Was not it originally designed to be a Pact for the Arabs primarily and most of the Arabs were against it, and now it is called the Bagdad Pact and Bagdad is against it?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that is a very inaccurate account of the history of this Pact which started off with Iran and Turkey as members of it, and neither of them is an Arab country.

Following is the note:

NOTE ON THE ECONOMIC WORK OF THE BAGDAD PACT
The Economic Committee of the Bagdad Pact was established at the end of 1955 with, as its terms of reference, the study of measures of economic co-operation designed to develop and strengthen the joint economic and financial resources of its members, and in particular to consider ways and means of sharing experience in the field of development. In the three years which have passed since the first meeting of the Committee, considerable progress has been made. The main items are summarised in the following paragraphs.

Communications
Contracts have been placed in the United Kingdom for equipment for high-frequency radio telecommunication links between London and Turkey and Iran. A request from Pakistan for equipment for improvement of links between London and Karachi is under consideration. An agreement has been concluded for the reduction of press telegraphic rates between regional members. It has been decided to appoint a team of specialists to consider the joint operation of civil airlines. Further progress has been made towards a unified system of road signs and traffic control regulations. Progress continues to be made in the various projects for improving road and rail links between regional members: in particular, the United Kingdom have undertaken to supply Pakistan with £200,000 for survey and construction in part of the coast road link in Iran, and £100,000 to Iran for their part of one of the road links with Turkey. The United States are also allocating substantial sums both for this and for the Turco-Iranian rail link, for which the United Kingdom are also providing £100,000 worth of equipment.

Scientific co-operation
The establishment of a Scientific Fund with an initial capital of £10,000 provided by the United Kingdom was welcomed.

Technical assistance and joint projects
A Multilateral Technical Co-operation Fund was established with an initial capital of $150,000, designed to increase technical cooperation amongst members. It was announced that the United Kingdom would make provision each financial year for a rate of expenditure of £850,000 for technical assistance and joint projects. In addition Her Majesty's Government have offered to provide equipment for a nuclear training centre to be set up in Tehran.

Agriculture
An Agricultural Training Centre is to be set up at Karaj in Iran. A veterinary convention was signed on 23rd January between regional members. Further assistance is to be given by the United Kingdom to the Red Sindhi Cattle Artificial Insemination Centre near Karachi. United States experts will assist Pact countries in the control of plant and livestock diseases.

Trade
Regional member governments are taking steps towards the standardisation of the agricultural projects and studying ways and means to expand trade between their countries. The

next session of the Sub-Committee on trade will consider a series of studies in the Free Trade Area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN FINANCIAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated value of the abandoned British claim in respect of the Suez base seized by Egypt; and the amount Egypt claimed for war damage in the Suez campaign.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Until the signature of an agreement with the Government of the United Arab Republic my right hon. and learned Friend has no statement to make on these matters.

Mr. Fernyhough: What has the right hon. Gentleman to hide? These figures are known to the Foreign Office. Why cannot they be given to the House? Are they something to be covered up and to be ashamed of? Furthermore, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that dispatch after dispatch from Cairo makes clear that until the agreement is signed British industrialists are losing trade to the value of millions of pounds to foreign markets —to the Czechs, Americans and Germans —and will he do something to speed up the signing and so give us a chance in world trade?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is certainly our desire to see this agreement signed as soon as possible. I do not think that an answer to some of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions would help in getting that speedy signature.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Egyptian Government to his proposal to establish a British Mission in Cairo.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member will understand that I cannot inform the House about the provisions of the agreement now being negotiated with Egypt until it has been signed. But there is no difference between the two Governments on the nature of the representation which it will be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to have in Cairo in order to implement the terms of the agreement and to help and advise British subjects.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is or is not the


case that after the agreement was initialled, the British Government sought to impose conditions, and can he say what those conditions were?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, that is not the case. I appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member in that if one reads newspaper accounts, they are conflicting, and, therefore, cannot all be true. I assure the House that we wish to see this agreement signed as soon as possible, and then full details can be disclosed to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the value of arms supplied to Cuba during 1958; and how much of the said amount is still owing.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In answer to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on 4th February.
With regard to the latter part of the Question, as far as I am aware nothing is owing for arms supplied to the Cuban Government during 1958.

Mr. Fernyhough: After what has happened, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that we were justified in supplying arms, and does not he think that it is time the Foreign Office became a little more wide awake in finding out what is happening in countries before we make decisions of this kind which redound to our discredit?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is quite a different question which has been dealt with on a number of occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (BRITISH PROTESTANTS)

Sir J. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the continued discrimination against Protestant British subjects in Spain; and if he will make a further protest to the Spanish Government.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the concern felt amongst Protestants in this country in relation to

the continued discrimination exercised against British Protestants in Spain; and what answer he received from the Spanish Government to his previous protest on this matter.

Mr. R. Allan: As my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 25th June last year, we know of no discrimination against British subjects as such, but if my hon. Friends have any particular cases in mind, I will gladly look into them if they will give me details.

Sir J. Crowther: Will the Minister have further inquiries made if I send him a copy of an article which appeared in The Times about ten days ago?

Mr. Allan: Certainly.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the discrimination is against them as Protestants? Is he aware that this is coming very close to a denial of the freedom of worship? Will he remind the authorities concerned that we are living in the twentieth century and not the Middle Ages?

Mr. Allan: I quite understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but if the Protestants are Spaniards, then Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi. If they are British subjects we can take action.

Sir G. Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend mean to say that Her Majesty's Government completely disinterest themselves in a condition of religious persecution in a European State with whom we have tolerably friendly relations? Is he aware that this is exceedingly retrograde? Is he aware that in the 1830s George Borrow sold the Bible all over Spain and wrote a book about it? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a very retrograde step? Will he ask Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See to make representations in this matter?

Mr. Allan: I will draw the last suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.

Mr. Ede: If the Foreign Secretary does not read The Times, can he at least read Milton's sonnet on the persecution of the Vaudois?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (GIFT OF ARMS)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the value of the recent gift of 655 tons of arms made to the Sudan by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. Allan: This was the first consignment of a gift, the total value of which is £587,000.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the hon. Member think that we are contributing to the peace of the Middle East by continuing to pour in arms? Is not it time that Her Majesty's Government learned the lesson from past events and began to pursue a policy which would bring pacification to the area rather than aggravate the situation?

Mr. Allan: These countries require arms. I think that it is preferable in the interests of peace that they are supplied from this country rather than others.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH TYROL (AUTONOMY)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent reports he has received from the British Ambassadors in Rome and Vienna on the discussions between the Italian and Austrian Governments concerning the execution of the Paris Agreement relating to autonomy for South Tyrol annexed to the Italian Peace Treaty.

Mr. R. Allan: I understand that discussions are going on but I am not in a position to say what progress has been made.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Member aware that those discussions have been going on for more than a year without any result being reached and that the Austrian Chancellor has recently found it necessary to protest publicly against the violations of the Paris Agreement by the Italian Government? Is not it time that the British Government, which was a signatory of the Paris Treaty, took some steps to assist the German-speaking minority in the South Tyrol to achieve their rights?

Mr. Allan: This is a question for direct negotiation between the two Governments. These negotiations are going on and have been going on for a year. We

have not been asked to intervene. We are not a party to the Agreement as such. I therefore think that intervention is not called for.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA CONFERENCES (NUCLEAR TESTS AND SURPRISE ATTACK)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made at the Geneva Conferences on the discontinuance of nuclear tests and the provision of safeguards against surprise attacks, respectively.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the present deadlock in the negotiations in Geneva for the discontinuance of nuclear tests.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As regards the Nuclear Tests Conference, since the reply given by my hon. Friend on 26th January, a further article of a draft treaty has been tabled by the United States Delegation. This deals with detonations for peaceful purposes. The Soviet delegate has submitted a long list of those issues which, in his view, would require unanimous agreement between the original parties to the treaty in order to reach decisions on them in the Control Commission. A technical working group has been studying the staffing of control posts. It would be wrong to describe the negotiations as being deadlocked.
The Conference on Measures against Surprise Attack adjourned on 18th December. The marked difference between the technical approach of the Western experts and the political proposals advanced by the Soviet bloc delegations prevented it from achieving the results which we had hoped for. We trust, however, that if its terms of reference can be clarified in a way acceptable to both sides it will reconvene before long and produce an agreed report.

Mr. Henderson: Could the Minister of State throw a little more light on what has taken place at the Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests? Are we to understand that the real objection on the part of the Soviet Government arises from their fear of being outvoted on the


Control Commission by the votes of Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government? Could not this be avoided by inviting at least two neutrals to sit on the Control Commission in order to avoid that possibility?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In my original reply I specifically confined myself to information which had been given in communiqués issued by the Conference. I am not at liberty to discuss precise proposals inside the Conference.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: We welcome the Minister's statement that the Conference is not in deadlock. Could he clear up the point about the staffing of control posts? Is it a fact, as has been freely reported, that the Soviet Government have agreed to have four to five foreign experts in each control post? If so, should we not do well, as The Times advises, to accept that proposal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think perhaps that I can clarify it to this extent. The Soviet proposal does not mean the introduction into the control post of five operating staff. They still wish that all the operating staff in the control post in the Soviet Union should be Soviet nationals. They have now raised the figure of what we would more rightly term, I think, observers to five in that control post. We do not believe that the presence of those five observers, coupled with the complete staffing of the control post by Soviet nationals, would give a sufficient safeguard.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what authority it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government at Geneva that neutral inspectors of nuclear tests should be responsible.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the hon. Member is referring to nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes, and if it is agreed that such explosions may take place, it will no doubt be agreed also that machinery should be established under the International Control Organ to satisfy all concerned that their purposes are exclusively peaceful.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister of State aware that I was not allowing for the possibility of the inspection of so-called peaceful test explosions at all? In addidition, may we take it from that Answer,

and the Minister's previous Answer, that it is now the policy of the Western Powers to make provision for further test explosions for so-called peaceful purposes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the hon. Gentleman will read his Question again, he will see that it refers to neutral inspectors of nuclear tests. From that, it was not very clear what he was getting at, because the whole object of the agreement is to stop nuclear tests. There would, therefore, not be neutral inspectors of nuclear tests, except of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. In my previous reply I have stated that the United States have put forward a proposal for conducting nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes under certain specified conditions. We have to see whether we can get agreement on that. But I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by Mr. Gromyko about Christmas time, in which he said that he would consider that proposal.

Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties of wording Questions on this subject is that his predecessor told us that he would not answer any more Questions about it? It is, therefore, rather difficult to get precise wording. Will the Minister now answer my supplementary question: is it the policy of the Western Powers now to make provision for the detonation of nuclear devices for so-called peaceful purposes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, that is the proposal that has been put forward and it would, of course, be accompanied by provisions to ensure that they were only for peaceful purposes, and were conducted under such conditions—that is, underground—that no contamination of the atmosphere could take place.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the temporary lack of progress at the Geneva Conference on the suspension of nuclear weapon tests, he will now make a statement as to what extent Her Majesty's Government's representatives have put forward proposals for the enforcement of any agreement to suspend tests.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member must realise that one cannot enforce a treaty of the kind we hope to negotiate.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the great interest there is in this matter, and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does find it possible to give details when it suits the Foreign Office—as, for example, the statement given to Press correspondents in January—may we ask for a full statement of the present position at Geneva, so that the country can take an intelligent interest in these matters?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have stated on many occasions that, obviously, the actual negotiations should be confidential, but if, as often happens at this type of conference, various stories leak out—or, sometimes, are deliberately leaked out—it must be within the rights of other delegations to put what they think is a correct explanation before the general public. To go further than that would, I think, be dangerous.

Mr. Beswick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay a White Paper before the House containing the texts of the proposals made by the Governments which are now participating in the negotiations for the discontinuance of nuclear tests.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. I fully understand the natural wish to know exactly what is going on at Geneva, but I do not think that a publication such as the right hon. Gentleman envisages would help us to obtain the agreement we all want on stopping nuclear tests under proper international control. The considerations my right hon. and learned Friend put before the House on 4th December were generally accepted at the time, and I think they are still valid.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has not the Minister himself said this afternoon that there has been a long series of statements and leakages by members of different delegations, some of them highly tendentious? Would it not now be right to follow the precedent set in the middle of 1957 for the proceedings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, and to let hon. Members know the texts, so that they can realise the nature of the differences now being discussed?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, because I am still very optimistic that the differences between us will be overcome. I believe that if we can continue the private negotiations they will be overcome

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALILAND (FUTURE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have taken place with the Italian Government in respect of future association after 1960 between Italian Somaliland and the present British Colonial Territories; and what representations the Italian Government has made to him in respect of their interests being affected by a possible union of all areas occupied by Somalis.

Mr. R. Allan: We have for some time had regular and informal exchanges of view with the Italian Government, as with other Governments with interests in the Horn of Africa, about developments in that area. As part of this continuing exchange, these Governments were told, well in advance, what it was intended to say in the statement about the future of the Somaliland Protectorate made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in Hargeisa on 9th February. Her Majesty's Government took account of comments made by the Italian Government in formulating that statement.

Mr. Sorensen: May we take it from that reply that the interests of the indigenous peoples in these areas will be protected, and that that will be the guiding principle and criterion in any future arrangements for bringing these territories together?

Mr. Allan: I think that that is a wide assumption, with which I would not agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Shipment of Arms

Mr. Baird: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the official complaints of the North Vietnam authorities that there were 15 shipments of war materials into South Vietnam from the United States of America in 1955, 82 in 1956 and 109 in


1957; and what steps the Control Commission have taken to investigate these charges.

Mr. R. Allan: Under Article 17 of the Cease-Fire Agreement, it is the responsibility of the International Commission in Vietnam to control the shipment of arms and war material into Vietnam. In its eight Interim Reports, the Commission has set out the action taken on complaints of violations of this Article.

Mr. Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Control Commission will be given every facility to visit South Vietnam to see whether or not this Agreement has been broken?

Mr. Allan: We cannot give any facilities to the Control Commission. That must be done by the two countries concerned.

Mr. Baird: But, surely, the Foreign Secretary is responsible, as Joint Chairman of the Geneva Conference, for the functioning of the Control Commission?

Mr. Allan: That is not one of his functions.

Phu Loi (Prison)

Mr. Baird: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what visits have been made by the Control Commission in Vietnam to the prison at Phu Loi.

Mr. R. Allan: As far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, the North Vietnamese complaint on this subject is still under consideration by the International Commission, which has not reported on it. No information is available as to whether its members have visited the camp at Phu Loi.

Mr. Baird: From the information I have from the Press, it seems that the North Vietnam Government have suggested that over a thousand people have died in this camp. The South Vietnam Government have denied this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now giving information, instead of asking for it. Could he ask a question?

Mr. Baird: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is possible to decide between the two, if the Control Commission is not allowed to visit the camp?

Mr. Allan: I have every reason to believe that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman are entirely inaccurate, but if he likes to send me the details I will be glad to look at them.

Postal Facilities

Mr. Baird: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a recent report of the International Control Commission in Vietnam announced that it had been possible to arrange for the exchange of postcards between South and North Vietnam on certain festivals; and what steps the Commission are now taking to secure the reintroduction of normal postal facilities between the two halves of the country.

Mr. R. Allan: My right hon. and learned Friend has not received, nor been informed, of any such report.

Mr. Baird: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, apart from occasional letters, there are no postal facilities between the North and the South? Is not it the function of the Foreign Secretary, as Chairman of the Geneva Conference, to see if something can be done to introduce a more civilised relationship between North and South Vietnam so that the people can write to each other?

Mr. Allan: The latest information we have is that, over a recent holiday period, 500,000 postcards went from North to South, and 350,000 from South to North

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS (DEBENTURES AND SHARES)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent successful financial outcome to the visit of the President of the Argentine to the United States of America and the growing settlement of conditions in the Argentine; and if, in the light of this, he will now renew his request to the Argentine Government to settle out of court or otherwise compensate the British holders of Anglo-Argentine Tramways debentures and shares.

Mr. R. Allan: Her Majesty's Government have made clear to the Argentine Government the importance which they


attach to an early settlement of the company's case, and will continue to give the company all the assistance that they reasonably can.

Mr. Teeling: Does my hon. Friend realise that the summer holidays are just over in the Argentine and the Law Courts in Buenos Aires have gone back; and, since the Argentine Embassy here informed me over seven months ago that within a few days the results of the case would be declared, is not it now high time that some pressure was brought to bear by our Government for the decision to be announced by the courts—or is it the case that the directors of the company do not wish our Government to intervene at the moment?

Mr. Allan: As I have said, the issue is before the courts now, and, therefore, there is limited action which Her Majesty's Government could take. They have not been asked to take any further action by the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTICA (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the outcome of the proposal by President Eisenhower for a twelve-Power conference to ensure international co-operation in Antarctica for peaceful purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his reply of the 5th of February, consultations about this proposal are continuing and a working party representing the twelve countries concerned has been meeting in Washington for this purpose.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving the Special Committee on Antarctic Research, which was set up last year at the end of the International Geophysical Year for international coordination, some functional job in this matter which might help?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will look into the proposal which my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Usborne: Would not the most intelligent solution to this problem be to

give up sovereignty in Antarctica and to transfer ownership to the United Nations, so that that body could lease out development rights, either to nations or corporations? Have the British Government contemplated this proposition?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not precisely the policy of Her Majesty's Government. As I think has been stated, the principles on which this working party should proceed are freedom of, and continued co-operation in, scientific research in the Antarctic, and the non-militarisation of the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

School-leavers

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken further to encourage both sides of industry to get together on the question of juvenile employment; how far local apprenticeship committees are able to deal with the problem; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): Employers and workers are both represented on Youth Employment Committees which advise on the administration of the Youth Employment Service in their area. Local apprenticeship committees which have been appointed by some industries are concerned with training rather than employment. The placing in employment of boys and girls who left school at Christmas is proceeding satisfactorily though it is taking longer than in recent years.

Miss Burton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary comment on the suggestion which was made last night by Mr. Jack Jones, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, to the effect that it would be useful if there were group apprenticeship schemes, to which the smaller employers might contribute some of the cost? Can he also comment on the the fact that Mr. Jones said that it was an entirely erroneous belief that the number of apprentices was limited by the trade unions in many industries, and that in the engineering industry it was the employers who were deciding the number of apprentices?

Mr. Wood: I am entirely in agreement about group apprenticeship schemes, and I have done what I can to say how necessary it is that they should grow. So far as the second part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is concerned, I think there are various limiting factors to the number of apprentices. I am quite certain that it is to the benefit of us all that these limiting factors should be eliminated.

Mr. Lee: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is now increasing anxiety in the country about the number of school leavers who are unable to find jobs, and about the slow way in which even those who do find jobs are going into industry, and also about the fact that the "bulge" within three years will increase the number leaving school by about one-third? Can he say what steps are being taken by the Government to meet such a situation?

Mr. Wood: I think that the figures of unemployed school-leavers have to be kept in proportion. In the hon. Lady's city, I find that out of nearly 1,000 who left school last Christmas, there are only 11 boys and 21 girls still without jobs. I certainly have the matter very much in mind, but I think it ought to be kept in proportion.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Coventry is one of the areas in which there is one of the smallest problems in this respect, and that it was rather from the general point of view of other parts of the country that I was putting my question to him?

Miss Burton: I do not think I can accept that last statement of my hon. Friend.

Careers Festivals

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a five-day Careers Festival was held recently in Coventry, aimed at giving senior children in Coventry schools an opportunity of learning about a wide range of occupations; and if he will make a statement concerning the steps which he is prepared to take to support and encourage such festivals.

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. Functions of this kind are held in many areas, with the support of the Youth Employment Ser-

vice, and I do not think that any special steps are required.

Miss Burton: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that this was very valuable, since not only were parents invited, but young entrants into industry also came and gave their impressions? Further, is he aware that groups of careers were taken together, and that sessions were devoted to groups of careers or those linked together? Does not he think that that is particularly valuable?

Mr. Wood: I think it is very valuable indeed, but there are various methods of doing this. It may be that some Youth Employment Committees may employ one and others another, but I think that the Careers Festival was probably a very valuable thing indeed.

Young People

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour how many teenagers are signing on at the employment exchanges at the nearest convenient date; and what steps he is taking to find employment for them.

Mr. Wood: On 12th January, 45,748 young persons—aged 15 to 17 years— were registered as unemployed. The Youth Employment Service is doing its best to place them in employment as quickly as possible.

Mr. Owen: I view of these figures, surely the Ministry should take some action to find employment for these job-hunting teenagers? May I ask the Minister to what extent he is now considering the use of the existing employment training centres, to which some of these young people could be directed for training?

Mr. Wood: I will certainly consider any idea which the hon. Gentleman likes to put to me. I think it is important to place against the figure which I gave him in my Answer—45,000—the fact that there are very nearly 45,000 unfilled vacancies for boys and girls, rather more for girls than boys. Therefore, the situation regarding the employment prospects of girls is not very bad.

Dock Regulations, 1934

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in revising the Dock Regulations, 1934.

Mr. Wood: As the hon. Member knows, this problem raises a number of practical difficulties. A memorandum on the subject has been sent to the interested organisations, which have been asked for their comments. Comments have been received from all but one organisation, and my officers have had discussions with a number of organisations. Further discussions will be necessary, and my right hon. Friend will then be in a position to decide what action is appropriate.

Mr. Skeffington: Does the Minister recall that his predecessor two years ago said that the Department was getting a move on in revising these Regulations, particularly in view of the strong criticism of them in the Court of Appeal? As there is some evidence that three or four men a year are being drowned because the Regulations are not right, could not something be done to speed up the matter?

Mr. Wood: When we have this further comment we are awaiting from one of the interested parties, and when we have had discussions with another interested party who wishes to discuss certain matters with us, we will make progress as soon as we possibly can.

TURKISH MINISTERS (AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
I feel that the House would wish me to say a few words to express our deep regret at the accident which took place last night involving the Turkish Prime Minister and his party. There was serious loss of life, the dead including one Minister, Mr. Somuncuoglu, Minister of Broadcasting and Television, a former Minister, Mr. Zeytinoglu, and the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, Mr. Ersu. Happily, Mr. Menderes survived without serious injury although he must clearly have been subjected to severe shock.
It is particularly sad that this tragedy should have fallen upon the Turkish Prime Minister and his companions while on a mission of peace and reconciliation. As a mark of respect for the dead, no

formal meetings of the Cyprus Conference are being held today.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will be following this with a statement about the accident. Meanwhile, I feel sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathy with the Turkish Prime Minister, Government and people.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, how much we desire to associate ourselves with what the Prime Minister has said about this tragic episode.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I should like to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend has said about this tragic accident. The circumstances, so far as they are known, are as follows.
The aircraft involved was a Viscount aircraft of Turkish National Airlines and the crash took place at Jordan's Wood, about 3 miles west of Gatwick, shortly before 5 p.m. yesterday afternoon, when the aircraft was approaching to land at the airport.
The aircraft was making use of the standard Instrument Landing System at the time and at a distance of about 4½ miles from the airport the pilot had reported that he was located on the I.L.S. At this point, the aircraft might have been expected to be flying at above 1,000 feet.
The weather at the airport at the time of the accident was quite good, with a horizontal visibility of about I nautical mile and one-eighth cloud at 800 feet. After the accident seven other aircraft made normal approaches and landings at the airport using I.L.S.
The Chief Inspector of Accidents is investigating the cause of the accident and has had a team on the site since yesterday evening.
I am sure, as my right hon. Friend has said, that the House will wish to join in expressing its deep sympathy with all those who have been injured or bereaved by this tragic accident, and its appreciation of the services of all of those who participated in the work of rescuing and helping those who survived.

Mr. Doughty: Does the Minister agree or disagree with statements in the Press


that, at the time of the accident, the aircraft was, in fact, on G.C.A.?

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that the aircraft was not under ground control, but that, of course, will no doubt be brought out during the inquiry.

Mr. Beswick: The Minister said that the Chief Inspector of Accidents is making an investigation. Are we to take it that there will be a formal inquiry following that investigation?

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that the Turkish Government have sent a message to say that they wish that there should be a full inquiry and that they should be associated with it. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I must consult them before I take a final decision; but, of course, the investigation on the site is going on.

Mr. Gough: May I say that I was on the site this morning and ask my right hon. Friend to confirm what I understand was the case, namely, that the local services, notably the Crawley Fire Brigade, appeared on the scene with commendable alacrity? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that alacrity may well have saved this disaster from being much worse?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I think that that is certainly so. As I said, I feel that we should be very grateful to all those who went to the scene and did very notable work.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Employment (Older Men and Women)

Colonel R. H. Glyn: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the Reports of the National Advisory Committee on the

Employment of Older Men and Women, and move a Resolution.

Road Programme

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the current road programme and the need to relieve traffic congestion by the provision of urban motorways, and move a Resolution.

Industrial Situation, Lancashire

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the industrial situation in Lancashire, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

Bill to empower the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations as to the payment of improvement grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, and as to the payment of grants and contributions under certain other enactments; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Kimball; supported by Sir Anthony Hurd, Mr. Thomas Williams, Sir James Duncan, Mr. Champion, Sir Arthur Baldwin, Mr. Peart, Mr. Michael Noble, and Major Sir Frank Markham; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday 27th February and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the House Purchase and Housing Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th February].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 11.—(CONDITIONS TO BE OBSERVED WITH RESPECT TO DWELLINGS.)

3.37 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, to leave out subsection (1).
Subsection (1) repeals a provision in the 1958 (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, that the premises in respect of which an improvement grant is made should remain available for letting unless occupied by the owner or someone, to put it very generally, related to the owner, for a period of twenty years. The effect of subsection (1) is to reduce that period to ten years. The point is quite a short one, and, in moving this Amendment very briefly, as I propose to do, I have in mind the promise given to the right hon. Gentleman from this side that we would do our best to complete the proceedings at a reasonable hour this evening.
We see no reason why this period should be reduced. We attach great importance to these provisions since they make the house, in effect, either owner-occupied or available for letting. We do not think it right that, within a comparatively short period such as ten years for this purpose, the house should be sold and the benefit of the improvements, in respect of which public money has been used to contribute half the cost, should pass to the buyer, the seller taking advantage of public money in receiving a higher price. That position has always been recognised in relation to improvement grants. I have been looking at the debates on the 1949 Act by which they were originated at the instance of my own party, and I cannot find that any objection was taken to the principle.
It occurs to me that we shall be told by the Government, "We are reducing by the Bill the minimum period of leasehold interest which the applicant for an improvement grant must have. It used

to be thirty years. The twenty years was related to that. It is now being reduced to fifteen years and, therefore, there ought to be a similar reduction of the period during which the provisions apply." We cannot accept that, because there is no reason why an arrangement of this sort should not go on and attach to the house, although I doubt whether provision will be made for it so attaching. The substance of the matter is that the house should be kept owner-occupied or available for letting during a much longer period than ten years and that an advantage, obtained partly out of public funds, should not accrue on the sale within any period shorter than twenty years.
This is the last moment for restricting the supply of houses available for letting. If these restrictions on improved houses are taken off, we are obviously making the availability of houses for letting a bit more restricted. We are making it possible to take the house away from the market for let houses and to transfer it to the market for sold houses. Without going into detail of the reasons, there is no doubt that in the big towns at present the shortage of houses to let is acute, and that people are being driven by other legislation, for which the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in office are responsible, to buying houses when they would not have otherwise bought them because they cannot find houses to let. Incidentally, they are being driven to making some very harsh bargains because of that difficulty.
Therefore, this is the very last moment to make a change which will, to some extent, reduce the pool of houses available for letting. That will be so, in particular, in relation to large towns. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the proposal to shorten the period, and, of course, if he cares to say that twenty years is perhaps too long but that he admits ten years is too short and suggests another period, we shall be interested in what he says. Our own view, however, is that twenty years never was too long, was never thought to be too long and, in present circumstances, certainly is not too long.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. R. Bevins): Like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I, too, should like to speak to


this Amendment with brevity. He is perfectly right in his exposition of the existing law and also in his sense of anticipation of the Government's views. The existing position is that the conditions which are set out in the Fourth Schedule to the 1958 Act have to be observed for twenty years after the improvements have been completed.
Clause 11 (1) reduces the period to ten years. That has been done quite deliberately by my right hon. Friend because, in his view and that of the Government, a twenty-year period for the conditions to run must deter people from applying for a grant. It is true that years ago the period was even longer than twenty years, but it has been found by experience that as this period has been reduced the desire to use and the popularity of improvement grants has correspondingly increased.
As the hon. and learned Member and, indeed, the whole Committee know, all of the changes which have been written into the system of improvement grants have the same objective in view, namely, to encourage people to apply for improvement grants. It is chiefly for that reason that to leave the period at twenty years would work in the opposite direction and would discourage people from applying for grants. My right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment.
3.45 p.m.
There is an incidental objection to the Amendment, and it is this. To qualify for a standard grant a dwelling need not now have an estimated life of more than fifteen years, and, therefore, to make the conditions of grant apply for twenty years would make the whole business rather ludicrous. That is a purely incidental objection. The main objection is that to leave the period at twenty years is likely to discourage applications.

Mr. James MacColl: I thought that the object of the Bill and of the improvement grants was to provide accommodation for people who could not afford a house with decent amenities. That can be the only justification for spending public money on private houses. There must, however, be some social advantage in doing this. The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of what is happening blows that theory sky high, because he says that the effect of reducing

the period for which conditions are to be in force is immediately to increase the number of people who are prepared to apply for grants. In other words, people who apply for grants, according to the hon. Gentleman, are not interested in providing a house for their own family or providing it at a reasonable rent for a tenant, but are interested in getting quick profits at public expense.
The hon. Gentleman says that provided the period for which these quite reasonable conditions have to be observed is reduced, provided it is whittled down, people will think it worth while waiting 10 years in order to sell it at a profit, whereas they will be put off if they have to wait twenty years. Surely the logical implication of that is that people are merely using public money as an excuse to get quick profits. If that is true—and the Parliamentary Secretary has said it, I am only taking his word for it—it seems to me to be a most deplorable result of the Act and it indicates the dangers of the policy of merely trying to subsidise the property market instead of providing homes for the people.

Mr. Albert Evans: The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is not convincing. He says that if the term of years during which the restrictions applied were reduced, then the result would be that a great number of people would apply for improvement grants. If that argument is taken further, one could very well see that if there were no term of years and no conditions imposed there would be an avalanche of applications for grants. We must be mindful of the amount of public money which is involved in these grants, which are very generous. A private owner can obtain from the Exchequer and from the local rate fund an amount of up to, I think, £400 for the improvement of one dwelling-house.
When the Minister agrees to hand over £400 to the owner of a private dwelling, the money coming partly from the Exchequer and partly from the local rate fund, he must necessarily impose certain obligations upon the recipient of that public money. We cannot hand out public money willy-nilly without some social tag being attached to it. Nobody here would defend the proposition that we should


hand out public money, and in considerable amounts—as much as £400 for one house—without making certain requirements obligatory upon the recipient of the money. To reduce from twenty to ten years the period during which the conditions apply is going a bit far.
I could have accepted the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary as being more reasonable had he said that the Minister would consider changing the ten years to fifteen years to fit in with another part of the Bill, but not even the Parliamentary Secretary can sustain in logic his argument that we should make it easier for people to obtain public money for their own purposes. He must go further and agree that certain obligations must be imposed upon the recipient of public money. It would be more in keeping with other parts of the Bill had the Minister agreed that between ten and fifteen years would have been more appropriate and if he had suggested amending the Bill to make the period, not ten years, but fifteen years.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree entirely with what has been said by my two hon. Friends. The point about a fifteen years' title is a purely incidental one. There is no reason whatever, if it is thought necessary, why some express provision should not be put into the Bill, but I am inclined to think that this arrangement

would run with the House anyhow. Be that as it may, however, that is not the real reason.

The reason why the Government are proposing the subsection is not in the interests of owner occupiers, who will not object, and not in the interests of tenants, but is to increase the number of persons seeking grants having as their object, or one of their objects, to resell the house afterwards with the benefit of the public money which has contributed to the improvements.

I did not know that the party opposite was prepared to admit so openly that that was one of its purposes in the Bill. I had supposed that it was for the benefit of owner occupiers or tenants and that it was intended to provide for small houses and the rest of the story, which appeals to us all because of the housing position throughout the country and particularly in the big towns. Now, for the Government to say that they adhere to this proposal because their friends will otherwise be unable to make profit out of reselling with the benefit of improvements financed by the Government, is an admission of the real motive which I had hardly expected. I advise my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 165.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Campbell, Sir David
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Alport, C. J. M.
Channon, H. P. G.
Gough, C. F. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, H. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Conant, Ma, Sir Roger
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Armstrong, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)


Ashton, H.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Green, A.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Corfield, F. V.
Grimond, J.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Balniel, Lord
Cunningham, Knox
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barber, Anthony
Dance, J. C. G.
Hay, John


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Barter, John
de Ferrantl, Basil
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holt, A. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hope, Lord John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hornby, R. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Sir James
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bingham, R. M.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, John (Test)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, F. J.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fell, A.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh,S.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Freeth, Denzil
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. F. A.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)




Joseph, Sir Keith
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kaberry, D.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Storey, S.


Kershaw, J. A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kimball, M.
Neave, Airey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kirk, P. M.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lambton, Viscount
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Leavey, J. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Leburn, W. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Teeling, W.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Temple, John M.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Peel, W. J.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vane, W. M. F.


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pott, H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McAdden, S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wall, Patrick


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webster, David


Maitland, Cdr. J.F.W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharples, R. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Marshall, Douglas
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Woollam, John Victor


Mathew, R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander



Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Speir, R. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawby, R. L.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Mr. Bryan and Mr.J. E. B. Hill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Greenwood, Anthony
Mayhew, C. P.


Ainsley, J. W.
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, Sir F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Beswick, Frank
Holmes, Horace
Oliver, G. H.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Oram, A. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hoy, J. H.
Owen, W. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Parker, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.


Boyd, T. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, John


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Pearson, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs,S.)
Peart, T. F.


Bronghton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, N.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Popplewell, E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Prentice, R. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon.A.Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, A. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Randall, H. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Reynolds, G. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rhodes, H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Royle, C.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, J.
Short, E. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon
Sorensen, R. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Spriggs, Leslie


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Steele, T.


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulhaes)







Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Viant, S. P.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Warbey, W. N.
Winterbottom, Richard


Swingler, S. T.
Watkins, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woof, R. E.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Thornton, E.
Willey, Frederick
Zilliacus, K.


Tomney, F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T, (Don Valley)



Usborne, H. C.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Deer and Mr. Wilkins.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, after "of", to insert:
an interval of at least".
I should like to refer, also, to the Amendment in line 17, to leave out "three" and to insert "five", and the Amendment in line 17, at the end to insert:
(during which the dwelling was at all times occupied by such a person as is described in the foregoing sub-paragraph (a) or the foregoing sub-paragraph (b))".
The first two Amendments raise a point slightly different from that raised by the third, but it is quite convenient that they should be discussed together.
Clause 11 (3) introduces a new class of person into the classes of persons who may occupy a house without interfering with the conditions upon which the improvement grant was made. The present conditions are that during the period which we were discussing on the last Amendment, the house shall be occupied by the applicant for the grant or a member of his family or, broadly speaking, his heir after death, or a member of the agricultural population under what I might call tied cottage arrangements. If it is not occupied by any one of these persons it should be let or kept available for letting.
The Government seek, by means of subsection (3), to introduce another type of person who may occupy without prejudice of the conditions, and that is someone who buys or takes, in some form or another, the interest of the applicant for the grant.
The obvious case would be that where a grant is applied for by one person and, at the end of three years, he is entitled to sell the property to someone else without infringing the conditions on which the grant was made. That is, in two respects, a complete change. First, it introduces a purchaser who was not there before in the conditions. Secondly, it sets a time limit of three years. The introduction of such a purchaser without

a time limit would be a bit much even for the present Government. It would mean that an applicant, and perhaps a collusive applicant, could apply for a grant and, as soon as the improvements were made, sell the property to someone else who would receive the benefit from the grant, and the public money which had been applied as to half the cost.
Even the present Government, in seeking a change at all, have thought of three years as the minimum period which they could put before us as a decent interval. But if we are to have an arrangement of this sort at all, surely three years is much too short a period. We suggest that it should be five years. I believe that we are being very moderate in that respect. It might very well have been a rather longer period. The object of this provision in the Bill is to prevent the passing of what would amount practically to the whole benefit of public contribution towards the grant, on a sale quite shortly afterwards. If that is the object, then, clearly, three years constitute a ridiculous period. Five years may well be too short, but we have put that period forward as, at any rate, an improvement on three years.
So much for the first two Amendments. The third relates to a rather different point. The proposal there is that during an interval of, as we say, five years, and, as the Government say, three years, the house must be occupied at all times by the applicant or by a member of his family. What we desire to prevent is that a landlord, having applied for the grant and having the house let at the time, should then be entitled to sell it with the benefit of the grant improvements.
We think that it is much better that, if it is to be made at all, a concession should be made in favour of the owner-occupier or someone virtually in the position of an owner-occupier. If, therefore, this Amendment is accepted, we would not allow a landlord, having taken the benefit of a subsidised improvement grant, to sell to someone else at the end of the period of three or five years. He would have to wait for the end of the


period of ten years which we were discussing on the previous Amendment, when the conditions cease to apply.
We draw a distinction in this case between the landlord with a tenanted house, where we say that the three or five years' interval should not apply to the owner-occupier house, to which we have not got a similar objection. I call the attention of the Committee to the point that in both cases what we are concerned with is the position as at the date of the grant, and the position for the period of three or five years following that. We are not concerned with the person who buys at the end of the period. If we are to have this at all, what we seek to avoid is the landlord with a tenanted house then getting the benefit of the improvement grant on a sale within such a comparatively short period.
I would also point out to the Committee that there is much more to be said for this Amendment, though there was much to be said for it anyhow, now that the total period for the observance of the conditions has been shortened to ten years. It is not asking much of a landlord if, when he has had a large contribution—and these are substantial figures in relation to the value of many houses—he should wait ten years before he turns them into cash, part of the cash representing the public contribution by way of a grant.
That, therefore, is the proposal in the third Amendment. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman—even if it is to some extent a repetition of what was said on the previous Amendment—that these conditions, in slightly changed forms but substantially these conditions, have been on the Statute Book for nine years now. I cannot believe there is any case deserving of an improvement grant where the applicant would not apply if our Amendment were accepted if he would have applied under the Bill as it stands. I can believe that there are cases where, unless the Bill is amended in this sense, people will make a profit out of a social need and the contribution out of public funds to meet that need, which nobody in this Committee would admit he desired them to have. It is to avoid that kind of profit being made that we move this Amendment.
We say, too, that we have every wish to see improvement grants used to the maximum for the purpose for which they

were intended. If the Government have any more money available, it is easy to increase the amount of the grant. It is easy to spend that money in other ways which will make a much greater and a more deserving contribution to a solution of the housing problem than adherence to the present provisions of the Bill. The money they represent, unless amended in the sense I have indicated, will be partly money that once more will appear to be a contribution towards improving the housing situation but will, in fact, be a contribution towards the pockets of the landlords, and for the purposes of the phrase, "the pockets of the landlords", I assume that limited companies have pockets.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The object of this Clause, which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seeks to amend, is to encourage and speed the giving of improvement grants.
I will remind the Committee of the history of these grants. When the improvement grants were enacted in the 1949 legislation, the restrictions imposed by Parliament were found to be so severe that for some years very few improvement or conversion grants were applied for or made. The conditions were substantially loosened in the 1954 Act, and from that time until now improvement and conversion grants have been made at the rate of between 30,000 and 40,000 a year. They have levelled out at that figure. That was a great enhancement of the previous figure, but it still remains relatively small in comparison with the total number of houses which are structurally sound and which could be made better places to live in if they were modernised as the grant system envisages.
Experience has shown that there are certain conditions in the existing legislation which discourage applicants from applying for grants. The Government have sought, in this Clause, to relax those conditions so far, and only so far, as is necessary to make as sure as we can that improvement grants will be applied for and made on a considerably larger scale than at present. This point, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing himself, concerns the three-year limit. The Government are proposing that it should


be possible for a man who has improved his house with the benefit of grant to sell after the expiry of three years, without the necessity of repayment of grant, if the house thereafter is no longer kept available for letting.
The first point is whether that three years is a reasonable period. In the view of the Government it is a reasonable period because nobody whose approach is merely to be in and out of property in the financial sense will be attracted, with the idea that he can make a quick profit. Certainly, the owner-occupier will not say to himself, "I will improve this house solely because I think I shall probably want to sell it more than three years' hence." If the situation changes, and he wishes to sell the house, he will be able to do so, and there is no doubt that the fact of being restrained by the existing conditions from selling the house to somebody who intends to occupy it without having to repay the grant has deterred many people from applying for grant in the first instance.
It has also had the effect, and there is evidence of this, that mortgagors have found it difficult to get building societies from whom they have received mortgage advances to agree to their applying for improvement grants. That is because, from the point of view of the mortgagee who has made the advance, any conditions attaching to the sale of the house thereafter are of importance. The situation might arise Where the mortgagee, if the mortgagor fell down on his payments, was taking over a house the further disposal of which might be difficult or impossible because of these restrictive conditions.
The Government had all this in mind and came to the conclusion chat three years was a reasonable time limit. One year might be too short, because it might be thought that a man could just get his improvement grant and sell the house forthwith. Five years, in the view of the Government, is needlessly long.
I must advise the Committee, also, that the Government could not accept the third of these Amendments, which is not on the three-year or five-year point, but on the other point.

Mr. Mitchison: It is quite clear, is it not, that the question is not whether the

man can sell, but whether he can sell without repaying a proper part of the advance made by the Government and the local authority? I did not make it quite clear when I was speaking, but I had hoped that it was understood.

Mr. Brooke: That is perfectly clear. The hon. and learned Member will realise how what he has just said links up with the contingent situation which I mentioned in the case of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, because, clearly, the mortgagor who is unable to keep up his mortgage payments will also be unlikely to be able to make repayment of the grant. There are further considerations, but I do not think that I need go into greater detail.
The effect of the third Amendment, as I understand it, would be that, if an owner improved his house and let it to a tenant, a sale to another man who was to occupy the house himself would be in breach of the grant conditions. The hon. and learned Member has a suspicion that, unless the Amendment is written into the Bill, the landlord of a tenanted house might be disposed to apply for grant, get the grant, have the house improved and then, after three years, if it was a decontrolled house, turn out his tenant and put the house on the market with vacant possession.

Mr. Mitchison: The difficulty would arise if he sought to do that during the three-year or five-year period. The house ought, as we say, to be owner-occupied by a family during the three or five-year period. I have left out the agricultural labourer.

Mr. Brooke: I am, perhaps, going a little further than that, because the hon. and learned Member is saying that the owner-occupier who improves the house and continues to occupy it for the period of three years shall then be free to sell it to a new owner without liability to repay grant. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seek to alter that by his Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: Not by this Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: No, not by this Amendment. On the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that, if a man applies for and gets a grant, and during


the three years lets the house to a tenant, after that he should not be able to sell it for owner-occupation without repaying the grant.

Mr. Mitchison: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Amendment, he will see what I have in mind. It relates entirely to what is to happen during the three-year or five-year period. Our objection is that a landlord may get his grant and then, at the end of a three-year period, may sell it with the benefit of the grant, and it may be tenanted. We do not take the same objection to an owner-occupier getting the grant and then selling the house. The reasons are perfectly obvious. The one has what I might call a home interest in the house and the landlord has a purely financial interest.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are not really at cross-purposes about the meaning of the Amendment. He is concerned with the case where the house during the initial three years is tenanted.

Mr. Mitchison: That is it.

Mr. Brooke: And then the three years are up. Then, under the Bill as it stands, the landlord would be able to sell the house to somebody else, who might move into occupation, if the tenant went out, and could then become the owner-occupier. The initial owner would not be under any obligation to repay the grant. The hon. and learned Member argues that, if the initial owner is also the occupier, there is no objection to that, but if he is the landlord then there is objection to it.
In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must say that one of the disappointing things about improvement grants so far is the slowness with which they have been taken up by landlords for the benefit of rented property. Almost all the improvement grants which have been applied for and taken up by house owners, as distinct from local authorities, have been taken up for the benefit of owner-occupied houses. This is a fact to which, in the Government's view. Parliament should properly pay attention, because the improvement grant system should ideally operate just as much for the benefit of those who are living in rented houses as for those who are owner-occupiers. That being so, the Com-

mittee ought to give its attention to the reasons why landlords have hitherto been reluctant to take up improvement grants.
The hon. and learned Member is seeking, by the Amendment, to sustain that reluctance and to make it the more discouraging for a landlord of a rented house to take an improvement grant and improve the house. The reason in the hon. and learned Member's mind is that, after the end of three years, it may cease to be a rented house and the landlord may sell it in the open market. He may be able to sell it with vacant possession, and there will be no guarantee that the house thereafter will be in the rented house category.
I must say to the hon. and learned Gentleman with all sincerity that, if that view were to prevail, it would certainly render it the less likely that rented houses would be improved with the help of grants. The Government desire that the improvement grant system should operate much more extensively than hitherto for the benefit of rented houses. We do not wish to introduce elements of discouragement such as the Amendment would introduce. We also take the view that, if an Amendment of this kind were written into the Bill, and if it was the case of a decontrolled house—and, indeed, so far as I can judge, the hon. and learned Member's anxieties could only apply to decontrolled houses where the tenant could be given notice to quit—

Mr. Mitchison: Decontrolled now or in the future.

Mr. Brooke: If those two conditions were to apply, the sinister type of landlord whom the hon. and learned Member has in mind would be likely not to apply for improvement grant forthwith, as we want him to do, but to wait and do nothing until he has had the opportunity of obtaining vacant possession and then sell. The effect of that would be to delay the date at which the house would be improved.
What the Parliamentary Secretary and I are arguing throughout the discussion on this Clause is that it is in the national interest that these houses, and particularly these rented houses, should be improved as quickly as possible. I must advise the Committee not to accept Amendments which, however well intentioned, would have the practical effect of


discouraging landlords from applying for improvement grants.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: I agree with the Minister that we should not discourage landlords even of rented property from making application for improvement grants. We want not only owner-occupied houses but rented houses to be improved.
Having said that, I think that the Minister has not paid sufficient attention to the very generous encouragement which he is offering. What can happen is that if we limit the period to three years there can be a rather dangerous invitation to speculators in house property. If the Bill goes through as drafted, a speculator can buy an old property without modern amenities and improve it, and in doing so he will receive perhaps £400 of public money. We must have regard to the handing out of public money.
As the Bill is drafted, that person, having received £400, will be able after three years to end his commitments to the local authority and sell the house and recoup the £400 for his own personal gain. This would give him a tax-free capital gain. I am certain that that sort of thing will happen if the small speculative builder becomes free after three years to sell the house which he has improved.
Much as we wish rented houses to be improved, we think that the Minister, in his desire to get improvements carried out, is being rather over-generous to the type of person who deals in old property and improves it. If such a person is to receive up to £400 of public money, he should be restrained from selling the property for at least five years. There is not much between the two sides of the Committee; it is a matter of three years or five years. I suggest that five years is not an unreasonably long period to restrain a landlord from selling property, having regard to the fact that he has been aided to the extent of perhaps £400 from public funds.

Mr. Mitchison: I have said what I wanted to say on the difference between three years and five years, but I feel bound to reply to some of the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the other point.
I assume, for the purpose of what I am about to say, that the period will remain

at three years. What we are seeking to do, by our Amendment, is to prevent a landlord, corporate or individual, from getting £400, or whatever it may be, of public money and then, at the end of a comparatively short period, selling the property at a higher price than he would otherwise have obtained. When I refer to a landlord I mean the landlord of a tenanted house. We think that in this respect there is a distinction between handing out public money to people who desire to improve their homes and handing out public money to people who desire to improve the source of their income. That is the distinction between the owner-occupier or the tenant, on the one hand, and the landlord, on the other.
The right hon. Gentleman said that landlords have not made sufficient use of improvement grants in the past. I entirely agree with him, but I see no reason whatever to suppose that it is these conditions which have prevented them from doing so. What I think has made landlords not make sufficient use of improvement grants in the past is that they have had to put up half the money, and a great many of them have been unwilling to do it in the case of houses which represent a comparatively poor investment because they need the improvements.
They are, on the whole, the older houses that one has in mind, and the difficulty has been, and will be when the Bill becomes an Act, to get the landlord to put up his share. We must strike a balance between any inducement that we can reasonably offer and what amounts very likely to a misuse of public funds if we are too slack in these conditions. So far as I know, this set of conditions has never been extended in this form or anything like it before. I do not know what complaints the right hon. Gentleman may have had. He did not tell us any. I can say that I have never heard of any case where this would have turned the balance.
As to the origin of the Amendment, I will let the right hon. Gentleman into a secret. It comes from the Urban District Councils Association, which has not taken any more substantial objections to much of the Bill but on this point feels, as I do, that it is opening the door to a very likely abuse and that, in effect, the result will be not that there will be any more houses improved—we do not believe


that from that point of view it will make any difference—but that many landlords will get more money by selling their property and the increase will be due to the public contribution towards the improvement grant.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that this would apply mainly to decontrolled houses because those are the houses where, if they are tenanted during the three years, there will be an even greater temptation on the landlord to turn the tenant out at the end and put into his own pocket the advantage of the improvements and the increase in the price which the improvements have caused. I think that that is true. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, although at present only a certain number of houses have been decontrolled, we have the express statement of his predecessor in office that it is the intention of the Tory Party to decontrol all houses. That was said by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, at Llandudno, in the autumn before the Rent Bill was introduced, and a Clause to give effect to that was put into the Rent Bill and we protested against it.
Therefore, since we are providing not merely for the period until the present Government lose the next General Election but for a very indefinite period in the future, we think it wise to insure ourselves against what we agree is a very remote possibility, that the Conservative Government may be returned to power, because we know that if they are returned to power they intend to decontrol all houses, and a provision of this sort would then become of much wider importance and application even than it is at present.

Therefore, in calling the attention of the Committee to that point, the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, called our attention, at the same time, to the very real risk that is being run all over the country in respect of decontrol and the effect that that will have on the matter of improvement grants and the period of three years.

I would always agree that one has to strike a balance in conditions of this sort. If we make them too harsh we shall no doubt deter landlords from improving houses. If we make them too slack we shall not be giving any benefit to the tenant; all we shall be giving him is some improvements for three years and then the street, and we shall be enabling a number of landlords, corporate and individual, to make an unearned and entirely unmerited profit out of a public contribution which was intended to meet a social need.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will feel that we ought to support the first two Amendments, although we shall be able to divide only on the first, and also on the quite separate point of the third Amendment, which is the one we have been discussing in some detail. I do not want to cut the discussion short, but the issues are tolerably clear. Since we have been talking about sinister landlords, a lurid light is thrown on the sinister intentions of the Government, and I hope that the Committee will not accept the Government's view.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 205.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[4.42 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Ainsley, J. W.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.


Albu, A. H.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Fitch, Alan


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chapman, W. D.
Gibson, C. W.


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Gooch, E. G.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)




Benson, Sir George
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Grey, C. F.


Beswick, Frank
Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blackburn, F.
Grossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hannan, W.


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Boyd, T. C.
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holmes, Horace


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, W J. (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas




Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hoy, J. H.
Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sparks, J. A.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Steele, T.


Jeger, Mrs.Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oram, A. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Owen, W. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parkin, B. T.
Thornton, E.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paton, John
Tomney, F.



Pearson, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, T. F.
Usborne, H. C.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pentland, N.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, G. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Warbey, W. N.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Watkins, T. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.
Weitzman, D.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Logan, D. G.
Probert, A. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Randall, H. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


MacColl, J. E.
Reeves, J.
Willey, Frederick


McInnes, J.
Reid, William
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rhodes, H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woof, R. E.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Ross, William
Zilliacus, K.


Mason, Roy
Royle, C.



Mayhew, C. P.
Short, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.


Messer, Sir F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hope, Lord John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cunningham, Knox
Hornby, R. P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Davidson, Viscountess
Horobin, Sir Ian


Arbuthnot, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Armstrong, C. W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, John (Test)


Ashton, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Barter, John
Duthie, W. S.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Batsford, Brian

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fell, A.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Kershaw, J. A.


Bingham, R. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.



Bishop, F. P.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kimball, M.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Freeth, Denzil
Kirk, P. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Leavey, J. A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Leburn, W. G.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Goodhart, Philip
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gower, H. R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bryan, P.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Green, A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimond, J.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Hay, John
McAdden, S. J.


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Conant, Mai. Sir Roger
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maddan, Martin


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holt, A. F.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)







Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, W.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Temple, John M.


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Marshall, Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mathew, R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thompson, K. (Croydon, S.)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Mawby, R. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Russell, R. S.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Sharples, R. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shepherd, William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Neave, Alrey
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wall, Patrick


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Webster, David


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Page, R. G.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peel, W. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Peyton, J. W. W.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woollam, John Victor


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer



Pitman, I. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Pott, H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 17, at end insert:
(during which the dwelling was at all times occupied by such a person as is described in the foregoing sub-paragraph (a) or the foregoing sub-paragraph (b)) ".—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 175. Noes 206.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, at the end to insert:
and the said sub-paragraph (b) shall be amended by inserting before the word 'or' at the end thereof, the words 'or by a member of the family of such a person'".
This Amendment deals with a small point. It is suggested that we should make a slight amendment to the 1958 Act, the consolidating Act. One of the exceptions mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to that Act is the occupation of a grant-aided dwelling by a person who, at the death of the original applicant for the grant, becomes entitled to the applicant's interest in the house. It seems reasonable in such a case that we should extend the exception to cover a member of the family of the person who has become entitled to the house. I hope that the Committee will consider this a sensible Amendment.

Mr. G. Lindgren: We agree that this is a reasonable Amendment and I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The Minister said that the idea behind making some of the relaxations in this Clause was to speed up the giving of improvement grants. After listening to the discussion, I think that the result will be an improvement in the taking of the grants rather than in the giving of them. Local authorities will now examine ordinary improvement grants, as distinct from the special ones introduced for the first time under this Bill, and be less willing than at present to make such grants.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) mentioned that he was approached by the Urban District Councils Association on this subject. The Minister must realise that while it is made easier for the property owner to take a grant— and perhaps to make a substantial profit if he is so disposed—more doubts will face local authorities about whether to make such grants. There is no compulsion on a local authority to make an improvement grant under the original

Act as amended by the 1954 legislation and now by this Bill.
By giving this concession to property-owners we may well find that some property-owners will apply for a grant. On the other hand, we may see more local authorities refusing to give such grants, because of the loose conditions which, in future, will be attached to the spending of public money in that way. I may be wrong, but as I understand, and as the Clause is drafted, it will be possible for a property-owner in my constituency who has a late or mid-Victorian dwelling of three or four storeys, to ask for an improvement grant of £1,200 to convert the property into separate and self-contained flats. He would be given a grant of £1,200 by the local authority, which he would match with £1,200 or more of his own money, and—in three years in some cases, and in all cases in ten years—would get his £1,200 back.
Many local councils will look twice at such applications if they realise, as they do at present, that they are putting public money at risk, and must bear part of the cost. We know that the Exchequer bears the major part. But this is giving to someone who may be able to realise his capital in a period of ten years. It would prove a better investment than Premium Bonds or a Post Office savings account. The old saying, "Safe as houses" still applies in certain instances, and especially in London, where property values do not drop. If money is invested in a house, and a substantial sum of public money is granted to assist in the improvement of the property, provided that the owner does not want his capital for ten years, this would prove a good investment, with a capital gain of £1,200 over ten years.
We have heard the Minister say that this will encourage owners, but I do not think that they will be encouraged, except the sort of owners who would wish to make something out of the transaction; and that is the type we do not wish to encourage. A large number of local authorities will be discouraged from making grants of this nature.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member is entitled to his view, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The 1949 Act, placed on the Statute Book by his party, proved far too restrictive, and the improvement grant scheme scarcely


started to operate. The 1954 Act improved the situation, but it is clear that 35,000 applications a year is not a great number in relation to the mass of houses which are structurally sound and where the occupants, whether owners or tenants, could benefit and enjoy their lives more were the houses modernised.
As I said when we were discussing the previous Amendment, the Government wish to speed up the applications for this improvement grant. Experience has shown that there must be a large number of people who could well apply for improvement grants, but are discouraged from doing so by the existing conditions. Under the Bill, while local authorities will be compelled to give a standard grant if the conditions are satisfactory, they will have discretion about improvement grants. Hon. Members will bear in mind that henceforth, under the provisions of another Clause of the Bill, if a local authority refuses to make an improvement grant it may be required to give its reasons in writing. That may prove salutary, because in all these matters we clear our minds when we have to put something down in writing or approve something which is written. Then we must see whether it expresses our point of view.
I sincerely believe that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall find that there will be a considerable increase in the number of applications and a considerable increase in the number of grants. That is what the Government desire. I realise that there are hon. Members opposite who are dead keen to make sure that no landlord shall gain by it. The Government are dead keen to make sure that the houses are modernised.

Mr. Lindgren: The Government may be dead keen, but their keenness up to the present has not resulted in any benefit for the tenant. Any action taken by this Government at any time and for any purpose has resulted in benefit to the landlord and not to the tenant. That is true in the case of any type of property, local authority-owned or otherwise.
As the Minister said, under the 1949 Act the number of improvement grants totalled 70,000. It is also true that the 70,000 applications which were approved were made by owner-occupiers. It is equally true that since the present Gov-

ernment have been in power, and under the provisions of the later Act, applications have numbered about 35,000. If the Minister is honest, he will admit that those applications were in respect of owner-occupiers and not of tenanted property; that is, with the exception of some estate landlords who applied on behalf of the workers on their estates, and I am not including them in the general term "landlord". Those were largely agricultural estates. But the majority of the landlords in the towns and urban areas have not used the grant for existing tenancies. The Minister says that he wishes to speed up the applications for grants. They would have been speeded up but for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds).
There is hardly a Member of the House of Commons who has not at some time approached the Minister about the refusal of local authorities to make improvement grants. In my own contituency, the Wellingborough Rural District Council has, over a period of years, refused to make these grants. It has refused to do so on the ground that as it was ceasing to make rate contributions to housing subsidies it should, in equity, cease to give housing subsidies to owner-occupiers or landlords. Local authorities will now think twice before making such grants because of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.
Why is it that we think that in some cases even the existing owner-occupier as well as the other landlord might take advantage of public money? The answer is that we have had experience of this sort of thing. The Government have been taking actions which help the "Smart Alec" at every turn. In my own town, Welwyn Garden City, which is represented in the House by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, the Government forced the corporation to try to sell existing rented property to the tenants.
What happened? The "Smart Alec" tenant bought at the sitting tenant's value and within a month or two had sold the property at a profit and had gone to live elsewhere. That meant, of course, that the person who bought such a property in Welwyn Garden City, and in any of the other new towns, as well as the new tenants, has had no control exercised


over him whatsoever regarding the purpose of new towns and of people working in the district or being essential to the industries of the district.
While we do not propose to divide against the Clause, we would point out that it is a Clause which gives the greatest advantage to landlords to realise capital gains out of public moneys granted to them. As we have said all the way through about the Bill and about quite a lot of other legislation which has come forward recently, it is more to the advantage of the landlord than to that of the tenant.

Mr. Ede: During the course of the Minister's reply to one of the Amendments moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) the right hon. Gentleman alluded somewhat satirically to what he described as the "sinister landlord." We on this side of the Committee do not fear the sinister landlord, because he is so easily recognisable. What we object to is the dexterous landlord, and his opportunities for dexterity under the Clause are being very considerably increased by making it easier for him to get public subsidies.
I am thinking particularly of those landlords who consist of limited companies and who have been buying up some of this semi-derelict property. They have not been treating their tenants very well in the past, and I am quite certain that they will now take these grants and, having taken them, will then prove that though they take with their right hand they will give nothing with their left. They will dispose of the property as soon as possible at the increased value which the Minister's policy will have put upon it. When that occurs, there will be no benefit to the tenant at all.
I think that this is a thoroughly unsuitable Clause to ask local authorities to work, and I have no doubt that they will be deterred from stating a good many of the reasons for their action in not wanting to make grants because of the unsatisfactory state of the law of libel.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE GRANTS TOWARDS CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, in page 11, line 38, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to subsection (6) of this section".
As this is a paving Amendment, it may be convenient also to consider the Amendment:
In page 12, line 17, at the end to add:
(4) An application under this section must also contain a statement either that the applicant is the occupier of the dwelling or that the occupier has consented in writing to the making of the application.
The Amendment excludes from the new scheme of "standard grants" dwellings provided after the end of 1944. The purpose is to help older properties by giving them modern facilities and making them worth-while purchases. This is in line with advice given to local authorities on the administration of the existing scheme of improvement grants. The practice has been followed since 1949.
Without the Amendment, it would be possible for new dwellings to be built or provided by conversion schemes, not with grant aid, without, say, a bathroom and hot water supply, and for the owner to apply later for grant towards the cost of putting in these "standard amenities". Under the Bill provisions as drafted, a local authority would be obliged to pay a standard grant to the owner.
We feel in the circumstances that the dateline of 1944–5 is the correct one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in page 11, line 38, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section".
I suggest that we could also consider the Amendment:
In page 12, line 17, at the end to add:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority shall not approve an application for assistance under this section in respect of any dwelling, being one of two or more dwellings owned by the applicant and comprised in one subject in the valuation roll, unless the local authority are satisfied that on the completion of the works specified in that application and in any other application or applications made at the same time as that application, all the dwellings owned by the applicant in the subject will be provided with the standard amenities.
What we seek to do fits in very well with the excellent Scottish conditions and the kind of amenity improvements we seek to have made in this Bill. Subsection (1) of the Clause says:
A local authority shall give assistance in respect of the improvement of any dwelling by any person other than a local authority by such works as may be required for the dwelling to be provided with the standard amenities, that is to say, subject to subsection (2) of this section, all of the following:—

(a) a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom;
(b)a hot water supply;
(c)a water closet for the exclusive use of the occupants of the dwelling; and
(d) satisfactory facilities for storing food;"

What we seek to put in here is that there shall be a condition provided:
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority shall not approve an application for assistance under this section in respect of any dwelling, being one of two or more dwellings owned by the applicant and comprised in one subject in the valuation roll, unless the local authority are

satisfied that on the completion of the works specified in that application and in any other application or applications made at the same time as that application, all the dwellings owned by the applicant in the subject will be provided with the standard amenities.
I do not need to tell the Joint Under-Secretary that it is likely where the improvements are to be made that they will be made in tenement property It is much more likely that that is where they will be made and that is where we want them made Those are the properties in Scotland which have not got these now commonly accepted amenities, which are so common that we do not even call them up-to-date.
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it would be exceedingly unfair if we allowed this kind of thing to go on in a kind of patchwork way. What we want is that every tenement in a property shall have modern facilities and that it shall not be open to a landlord to apply these amenities to only one dwelling within a property without any consideration of what is to happen to the rest. We have no objection to his proceeding bit by bit if the indications are that it is his intention to deal with all the dwellings, but during the last 20 or 30 years we have been plagued with the business of tenement properties sliding into slumdom, first becoming sub-standard and then becoming slums.
It would be unfair to local authorities to place on them an obligation that if in one case there is a plan to repair one house and it is surrounded upstairs and downstairs and on each side by houses in a rotten state, irrespective of the rottenness of that state, the authority must make a grant because of the amenity improvement in the one house. So we seek to lay down the stipulation that regard shall be paid, not to the condition of just one house, but to the intentions of the landlord in respect of all the houses within that property.
There may be difficulties, but I think it is a balance of difficulties against injustice to the local authority. In our previous approach to this problem of improvement, the Labour Government in 1949 laid down that the local authority had discretion as to whether or not it would give a grant in relation to major improvements. That was added to in relation to certain subjects by a Conservative Government in 1951–52. The main point here is that the matter is made compulsory. There is no measure


of manoeuvre for the local authority and no flexibility apart from the few conditions laid down about the dwelling being fit for human habitation and so on. I think that Scottish conditions even more than English conditions warrant more consideration being given to the question of a house within a block of property. The local authorities should be given very much more power to refuse grants in particular circumstances, and this is one of those circumstances.
I do not think for a moment that landlords will use the Bill. They have never done this in the past, and we have to remember that we are relaxing other conditions in the sale of these houses. It may be that a landlord will select one house of out a block of property, repair it and be able to sell it. Whatever he spends on that property will be taken off the possibility for repair of other properties. He will be enriching himself, not only at the expense of the local authority and the State, but also at the expense of the people living in substandard property. This is a matter which we have to watch very carefully in Scotland.
We want to see these houses brought up to date. I suspect that the answer I shall get from the Joint Under-Secretary will be to the effect that the state of these houses is so bad that we shall be glad to get one of them brought up to date. He knows as well as I do that local authorities are at present compelled, because of the state of a tenement block, to bring the whole block down, despite the fact that there may be one house in that block which is in good order. The local authorities should be given the power to allow money to be expended in this way, not on the state of one house that is to be improved, but in relation to the state of the whole property upon which the span of life of that one house itself eventually may well depend.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be as forthcoming in respect of this Amendment as was the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government when dealing with a similar Amendment for England. He recognised that there was something in it, and I think that he decided that he would think about it to see whether or not he could introduce some such flexibility into the powers of the local authorities.
The difficulty, as the Bill stands, is that if an application is made and the house is fit for human habitation then, whether they like it or not, the local authorities have to provide the grant in respect of it. This may be against their better judgment in relation to their knowledge of the state of the houses above and below. We have to balance this question of the urgency of the problem against justice to the local authorities, the ratepayers and the people who have to live in the property and who may well be crying out for repairs to be done by the landlord who is prepared to spend money on one house but not on all of them.
Some of the houses side by side may not be in a state of good repair. It may be that the sanitary inspector has been chasing the landlord to put them into repair. It may be that the local authorities have themselves been compelled to spend money on puting them into repair, and yet the landlord in respect of one house in the same block, under the conditions of the Bill, can say, "I am going to do this; I want the grant", and he must get it.
I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary to look at this problem, which is a serious one and not remote from reality. Anyone who has seen pictures of tenement property in Glasgow knows that this is a problem which we are up against all the time. It concerns Edinburgh as well. If the Secretary of State would stand on the verandah at the top of St. Andrew's House and look down for a moment on that rotting property—

Mr. McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman might fall over.

Mr. Ross: It is more likely that the property might fall over than the Secretary of State. We have to ensure that the money being spent is being rightly spent and that the discretion being taken away from local authorities in this way is wise. I think that there should be some conditions applied concerning this problem and that this is one of them.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The Amendment refers only to a very limited class of dwelling. So far as I can ascertain there are very few cases now where there are two or more dwellings even in one ownership which are premises in one valuation roll entry under Scottish practice.
Having heard the moderate speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I take it that he does not want the view which he has in mind granted to the one valuation roll entry. That comes from the difficulty of copying an Amendment which applies to England into Scottish wording.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: There is need for independence in these matters.

Mr. Browne: It seems to us unfair to put the owner into the position of having to improve all the dwellings at the same time. Let me put this point of view. First, he may not be able to afford it. We know that many of these properties are owned by small men who have the greatest difficulty in making ends meet and it may be too great a burden on the owner for him to be able to afford to repair all the houses at once.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to patchwork. What is wrong with patchwork if the owner keeps on doing it and does as much as he can afford? Surely the object of the exercise is to get the standard repairs into the houses. Thirdly —and this is where, I think, the hon. Gentleman who is in a reasonable frame of mind today will agree with me—in many of these properties there will be houses which cannot qualify for the standard grant, even if we wanted them to, because there is no room for a bath, the heating and all the standard amenities which have to be supplied under this Bill or not at all.
He and I can both think of tenements where some of the properties could be improved up to the necessary standard of amenity but not others. It is for those reasons and because the Amendment is impracticable that we feel that we must reject it, although I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Gentleman who spoke for it.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The Minister has given us two different reasons for rejecting the Amendment. The first was that he did not see any reason why we should complain about work being done in a patchwork way. I do not think my hon. Friend the

Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) laid any great stress on it being done in a patchwork way.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman did not want it done in that way.

Mr. Ross: I did not say that I did not want it done. The implication was that I did not want it left.

Miss Herbison: The second reason adduced by the Minister was that an owner might not have the money; he might be a poor man and own a little property and not have the money necessary to repair the house. If that is the case, would the Minister look at this matter between now and the Report stage to see that if an application is made for one house in a block of property it can be granted on condition that, within a specified time, improvements would be carried out to the other houses?
If the Minister accepted an Amendment of that nature, it would mean that what we are trying to do by this Amendment would come about. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, know the kind of property that exists in many areas in Scotland and not just in Glasgow and Edinburgh. We realise that the local authorities may be forced to give good money to a landlord of a property that would not be worth it, because it was one of a block not being repaired. I ask the Minister, for the reasons which I had tried to give, to look at this matter again between now and Report stage. If he cannot give us all that we have asked for in this Amendment, surely it is right, when he is placing a duty on the local authorities, to protect them against some of the landlords of whom he and I know in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I cannot allow the Minister's comments to pass without a word or two. We do not want these properties to be considered in terms of single houses. The Minister knows the kind of property about which we are talking. He said that if the Amendment were accepted there were certain houses which could not take the standard amenities, and that is true. But surely it follows that it will be a waste of money to put standard amenities into one of these houses which will eventually be destroyed by the fact that nothing can be done about the rest of the property. The great curse of Scotland is that about 10 per cent. of


the houses in Scotland consist of only one room. If we take the number of houses which consist of one or two rooms, it amounts to over 40 per cent. Let us proclaim that to English hon. Members. In such property, where are we to make a bathroom? Where are we to make a separate water closet?
In order to get the continued use of these houses we must look at the property as a whole. If hon. Members go into a close in the Gorbals or Kilmarnock, on the first landing they will probably find three houses—a room and a kitchen on one side; a kitchen in the middle; and a kitchen on the other side. These improvements can be carried out properly for the benefit of the people of Scotland only if the whole property is treated as one and if we take the central kitchen and make out of it two bathrooms and the water closets. That is why I object to this patchwork way of proceeding.
What will be done if one house is dealt with and then the remainder of the property is left? Whether the landlord likes it or not, he may not be able to do anything with the other houses, but the life of the good house will be determined by the life of the rest of the property. We might well be wasting money.
Secondly, does the hon. Member think it fair, and in line with the other Parts of the Bill, that we should do this and enable the landlord to do nothing about the rest of the property from the point of view of ordinary repairs and yet be able to sell the house later? The hon. Member is fully aware of what I and my hon. Friends have in mind in this connection. We want the property to be considered as a whole and the landlord to apply himself to bringing up to date, as and when he can, within the limits of his financial circumstances, the whole of the property and not just one little part of it.
I agree that the landlord may well be unable to do the whole thing at once. In fact, I said so. I should be satisfied if he demonstrated to the local authority his intention of proceeding from one part of the building to another, from one house to another.
Appreciating the kind of housing with which we are dealing here, I hope that the Minister will think again about the merits of our proposal. It may well be that the words are not right and that there is the snag of the single house, but if we

are to do anything worth while we must consider the problem in terms of a property rather than of single houses otherwise we shall be wasting money. Not to do so would be unfair to local authorities. If given discretion they would probably not spend money in that way in all cases. The Minister is taking discretion from the local authorities and making them spend ratepayers' and taxpayers' money in a way which they probably would not adopt if they were given a discretion. I hope that the Minister will think about this again.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for his second speech. I now see where he and I are at cross purposes. He asked where we should put the separate water closet in these houses, and there was a suggestion of making three flats into two. That is a subject for an improvement grant. The Bill covers the standard grant and makes no provision for conversions. It does not apply to conversions.
I do not disagree with the hon. Member, but in this Bill we could apply the standard grant to the improvement but not to the conversion of houses. If the property owner cared first to convert the house from three flats into two and, having done so, applied for a standard grant, he would probably get it, but if he wants grant aid for helping him to do the conversion, that is an improvement grant and not a standard grant.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked whether I would consider accepting a condition that all suitable houses in the tenement should eventually be repaired. I think I am right that she wanted me to consider that if an owner wanted an improvement grant for one suitable house in the tenement and there were three suitable houses in it, it would be a condition that he would eventually deal with the other two houses. That is not in the Amendment and I have not been able to take advice on it. It might give rise to problems such as, in whose opinion it was practicable to do this. I should not like to give an undertaking. We will look at that point but not with an undertaking that, after reflection, we will accept it.

Miss Herbison: It seems to me that the Minister has made up his mind on this


matter. If any landlord decides, for the kind of motives which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has described, to ask for a grant just for one house, it seems that the Government are perfectly content to permit that.
The Minister referred to the difference between the standard grant under the Bill and the improvement grant under the previous Acts. We are considering property where in some cases it is possible to put in the standard amenities and in some cases it is possible to do so by a conversion grant under the 1954 scheme. In other words, by the time the work had been finished, either under the provisions of the Bill or under the provisions of the previous Acts, we should have a block of houses which were worth while, which gave good housing accommodation for the people living in them, and which would have a good life ahead of them. In that case one might be ready to say that public money had not been wasted on these houses.
We do not say that the words of our Amendment are the correct words, but we are convinced that there should be some such provision, and we have said enough, I think, both about the grant for standard amenities and the improvement grants, to show that we desire to have as many houses as possible in Scotland made better houses. At the same time, we desire not to waste public money in the way which would almost certainly occur in these circumstances under the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has raised a very important issue in relation to large cities where there are numbers of large blocks of tenements, many of which should be either modernised under a development scheme or pulled down. There should be no tinkering about with them at all. Most of us are conscious of that, so we must look at this matter rather more seriously than the Joint Under-Secretary appears to have done. He seems to have looked at it from a Departmental, almost a legalistic, angle.
One way of meeting what, I think, the hon. Gentleman admitted were perfectly valid points would be to give local authorities greater powers. As Clause 20 stands at present, local authorities have not the power to prevent what my hon. Friend fears will happen. It is not beyond the

wit of the Scottish Office to see whether it cannot, under Clause 20, extend powers to local authorities that would enable them to prevent tinkering and a waste of public money on houses that ought not to be tackled at all.
It may be true that the Amendment is not worded as it should be, but if the hon. Gentleman cannot think of a suitable Amendment he might consider an extension of powers to the local authority. Here the local authority knows best. It knows better than the Secretary of State or anyone else—and better than this House—whether a standard grant should be given in respect of certain selected houses—which is what it comes to —in a tenement block. It is able to judge whether the work will fit into any development plans there may be for these blocks. In those circumstances, the local authority ought to be given the necessary powers. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and I am surprised that the Under-Secretary does not say that he will examine it.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has underlined my point in every word that he has said. He is thinking of the wider powers of the improvement grant and not of the narrow scope of the standard grant—

Mr. Willis: No.

Mr. Browne: He wants the local authority to have wider powers, but it has wider powers in respect of the improvement grant. However, as what he said is subject to the old argument about "shall" or "may" connected with Clause 20, perhaps this matter would better be discussed when we deal with that Clause.

Miss Herbison: Has the Minister no answer to my suggestion of a combination of the standard grant and the improvement grant? For the reasons I gave, I thought that it was worth his consideration. It would ensure that what money is spent will be well spent on houses that we will have with us for some time; and that public money was not wasted. We have tried to meet the Minister's argument that some houses could not take the standard amenity by suggesting that it could be done by a combination of both grants. Perhaps he will look at that between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Browne: I thought that I had undertaken to do that.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, after "provided", to insert:
for the exclusive use of its occupants".
I have noticed that since similar Amendments were moved by our English colleagues a number of improvements have been made to the Bill by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in this case the right hon. Gentleman might himself have put down this Amendment rather than have left it to us.
The Bill sets out the four standard amenities, among which is:
…(c) a water closet for the exclusive use of the occupants of the dwelling ….
We are very glad that the Government insist on that, because we know how glad people living in the kind of property we have in mind in Glasgow and Edinburgh will be to have a water closet for their exclusive use in this way.
Another of the amenities is:
…satisfactory facilities for storing food …".
But if those facilities are not made exclusive to a household we could find a number of families all trying to store their food in the same place. Again, the
… fixed bath or shower in a bathroom …
is not meant, apparently, for the exclusive use of one household but of many. The non-exclusive hot water supply may not be quite so stupid, because we know that in many of the up-to-date blocks of flats hot water is supplied to them all. However, I am sure that I do not need to say any more to the Minister as he will realise that the standard amenities should all be for the exclusive use of the one household.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I agree that my right hon. Friend should have put his name to the Amendment, and I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move. in page 11, line 43, at the end to insert:
(b) a wash hand basin.
With your approval, Sir Gordon, perhaps we could discuss this Amendment with that in page 12, line 1, leave out

from "closet" to "and" in line 2; and the Amendments to Clause 21:
In page 12, line 44, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-five";
In page 13, line 4, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "thirty";
In line 5, at end insert:
(b) by five pounds for that mentioned in paragraph (b.)
The Amendments to Clause 21 refer to the monetary side of the wash basins.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Yes.

Mr. Browne: The Amendment I have just moved meets what is sought by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), but there are two differences, both of which, I am sure, are acceptable. One is that there is no reason for saying that the wash-hand basin has to be in the bathroom. There are people who prefer to have it in another room. If the house is a little crowded, that allows more than one person to wash at the same time.
Further, we felt it better that, as it is a new and separate item, there should be a separate grant. Otherwise, if the house had a bath but no wash-hand basin, the local authority might have to pay a grant of up to £30 for that item alone. We are therefore putting down the Amendment in this form for technical reasons, and we are also very grateful to the hon. Lady for her Amendment.

Mrs. Mary McAlister: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is no apparent reason why the wash-hand basin should be in the bathroom, but I think that it is an elementary requirement that it should be in the bathroom. I think this should be specifically written into the Bill, and I cannot accept what he says.

Mr. Browne: People live in all sorts of different conditions, and I think that the owner-occupier or the owner who has to get the agreement of his tenant before he can put in these improvements, and who might well argue with the tenant about them, should be allowed, in the case of a wash-hand basin, to put it where he thinks best, rather than that we in this Committee should insist that it should be in the bathroom.

Mrs. McAlister: We are spending public money, and according to this the wash-hand basin could be anywhere.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister), who is most interested in these Amendments which we put down because of her very great knowledge of housing conditions in Glasgow, feels strongly that the bathroom is the proper place for the wash-hand basin.
I want the Minister to think again about the kind of houses which he passes through in Glasgow. If a bath, which is a standard amenity, is put in, surely the place to put the wash-hand basin would be in the bathroom. We may have big houses where there may be another room in which one could put a wash-hand basin which would give the necessary privacy that one wants for the use of a wash-hand basin. It seems to me that we have to be very careful that when a grant is given for the provision of a wash-hand basin it is put in the room where there is privacy. For most of the houses in Scotland which we are thinking about, the one place where there would be that privacy would be the bathroom. I think very great care will have to be taken about this, but I would add that we are very glad indeed that the Minister has accepted the Amendment that we have put down, and, indeed, has added his own.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 1, leave out from "closet" to "and" in line 2.—[Miss Herbison.]

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, at the end to insert:
Provided that an application under this section shall not be entertained, if and in so far as it relates to a dwelling in relation to which a notice to provide a water-closet has been or may be given under section two hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (which, as amended, requires the provision by house owners of water-closets or earth-closets on notice given by the burgh council and magistrates), or to which section five of the Act of 1950 (which enjoins county councils to require the provision of water-closets, where reasonably practicable, or earth-closets) applies.
One of the standard amenities is a water closet, and in our previous legislation—indeed, as far back as 1892— power has been given to a local authority to insist on the owner of a house pro-

viding a water closet where that is possible, and, where it is not reasonably practicable, to insist on the provision of an earth closet. I hope that we have got far enough away from the days of earth closets, but we feel that we ought to be very careful, and, since for a long time there has been on the Statute Book the power of local authorities to insist on the provision of a water closet, public money ought not to be used in these instances.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have looked at the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, because I could not help but remember occasions when we were having to use public money to make provision for what is surely one of the most elementary amenities in any household. Section 5 of the 1950 Act says this:
… every local authority being a county council shall require the owner of every occupied house or part of a house occupied by a separate family within their district to provide for each such house or part of a house a sufficient watercloset wherever it is reasonably practical so to do, and, where that is not so practicable, a sufficient earthcloset; and if the owner fails to carry out such requirements within three months after intimation thereof, the local authority may themselves execute the necessary work, and the expenses incurred by them in so doing may be recovered by them from the owner.
It seems to me that we are taking a very retrograde step in providing for the failure of the private landlord to fulfil his statutory obligation. We are saying, in effect, that if the landlord fails to carry out the provisions of Section 5 of the 1950 Act, then the public, the ratepayers and the taxpayers, will pay up and will help him to fulfil a task which he is under some statutory obligation to fulfil himself. I take violent objection to the entire principle of paying out public money to encourage landlords in the provision of amenities which, if they were good landlords, they would have provided already. In any case, many of the ratepayers will be poorer than some of the landlords, but will be helping to pay for these grants. We are continually being impressed by the hardships of ratepayers and taxpayers; yet some of these ratepayers will be poorer than the landlords, but will be asked to pay for the shortcomings of landlords.
There is no question of a means test in this matter, so far as I know. The


Government have been at pains to say, precisely because there are some ratepayers and tenants of council houses who may endure hardship in occupying those houses, that when others are occupying council houses and are yet able to pay the economic rent, they shall pay that rent. There is a means test there, but there is no question of a means test in this provision. The landlord will get the grant whether or not he can afford to pay himself. The hon. Gentleman should make it quite clear that the private landlord who has not thought fit to provide a sufficient water-closet under the provisions of the 1950 Act, should be made to do so, and if he cannot do it, his property should be taken over.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I appreciate the point of view of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), but there is another point of view. First of all, the Whole question of giving grants for a water-closet, where there is a statutory power of a local authority regarding its installation, is, as the hon. Gentleman realises, wider than the standard grant. The argument, if there is one, is equally applicable to the ordinary improvement grants Which are being granted in Scotland at this very time.
I would point out to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they made no such provision when they brought in the 1949 Act.

Mr. Thomas Steele: That is not an argument.

Mr. Browne: It is a fact, if not an argument. It is true that, under that Act, the local authority has discretion in granting aid, but I have looked at this point, and I have no reason to think that any local authority has refused to give an improvement grant for a water-closet because of that statutory provision. We see this matter in another light altogether. As we see it, the Bill does not in any way cut across what is a long-standing statutory provision that an owner can be required by the local authority to provide water-closets. What it does do is to make it easier for him to fulfil that obligation, because he can get a grant of up to £40. But then, what is the object of the Bill? What is the object of the exercise?

Mr. Hamilton: We know—more for the landlords.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The object of the exercise is to reduce the number of houses without water-closets. That is what we all want, and we want to reduce that number to the greatest possible extent. I believe that we shall make it easier to do that by putting the landlord in funds rather than excluding him simply because there is a statutory obligation in some other Act requiring him to do it.

Mr. McInnes: I cannot quite follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is quite clear that there is already a statutory obligation under another Act. What is wrong with incorporating in this Bill that statutory obligation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) said, there is an obligation in Section 5 of the 1950 Act, where the provision is made to cover county councils. Under another piece of legislation, the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, there are provisions dealing with burghs.
When we are asking for all sorts of things to be provided for in a Bill, for wash-hand basins, showers, baths and all the rest, why should it be unreasonable to extend it to incorporate the provision of water-closets? I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's attitude. Does he anticipate that landlords will refuse to meet their mandatory obligations? Why select this particular aspect of the standard amenities? Why should the landlord select this particular part of the standard amenities simply on the basis of a monetary consideration? Is it not more desirable to have a provision of this kind than many of the other provisions we are seeking to incorporate? Ought not we to have a provision such as the Amendment indicates, despite the provisions in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950? The hon. Gentleman ought to be more frank and forthcoming with us. What exactly is in his mind which precludes him from accepting the Amendment?

Mr. Browne: I will try again. I think the hon. Gentleman has confused me a little on this. He says "Why not incorporate those obligations in the Bill?", that is to say, the obligations under the 1950 Act. What he is doing by his Amendment is denying grant for a w.c. to anyone who is under, or who would


come under, the obligation. He seeks to deny grant to those people.
My view is that the local authorities have unimpaired by this Bill their existing powers to require a w.c. All the Bill does, if they do require a w.c. or have done so, is to make it possible for the owner to come to the local authority and say, "This is one of the standard improvements. May I have grant for it?". I think that that will help him to provide the w.c.

Mr. Hamilton: That is precisely what we object to. We on this side feel that the private landlord is already under statutory obligation to provide it, and we think that he ought not to receive grant for being a good landlord. That is all we say. We should not reward him for carrying out the duties of good citizenship. That is what we object to.

Mr. Ross: I hope my hon. Friends will correct me if I have it wrong, but am I to take it that this Amendment draws attention to the fact that there are houses which have no water-closets, the landlords are under an obligation by law to provide water-closets, the local authority has served notice on them telling them to do it, and they have not done it? Is it the suggestion that, under the Government's Bill, such landlords can put the w.c. in and the public will pay for it? Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State going to suggest that is right and fair?
There may be two landlords of property side by side, both under the same obligation. They have both had notice. One abides by his statutory obligation and puts the thing in, paying for it himself. He does not even put his rent up. The other landlord, who has refused to do what is his job and duty under the law, can use this Bill to obtain from the local authority money which is provided partly by the local authority and partly by the Treasury, put the thing in, and then, indeed, raise the rent.
How can the Joint Under-Secretary refuse this Amendment? He spoke about being in difficulty in understanding what someone on this side had said. How can he possibly justify the subsidising of a landlord who has refused to perform his statutory duty, not only subsidising him but also allowing him to raise the rent in respect of what little he does

spend? It is most unfair and cannot be justified. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again.
What is the local authority to think about it? The local authority has no power to refuse. A local authority may have been badgered for years and years by the unfortunate tenant saying that he wants a water-closet in the property. The sanitary inspector agrees and says, "All right; according to the present law"— the Statutes are referred to in the Amendment—"we shall serve notice upon the owner to put it in". The owner does nothing at all. He ignores the local authority. He refuses to comply with his statutory obligation. Yet the Joint Under-Secretary says that it will now be quite fair for this man to claim a standard grant in order to put the w.c. in. This is to put a premium on the bad landlord, and it really cannot be justified at all. Moreover, he is then to be allowed to raise the rent after the work has been done—and done partly by the local authority. This is really to carry things much too far. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will think again. This is probably one of the most important Amendments we have put down.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is a little at sea. Under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, Section 5, a county council
shall require the owner … to provide … a sufficient water-closet wherever it is reasonably practicable so to do, and, where that is not so practicable, a sufficient earthcloset.
In the burghs, the local authority may make byelaws regulating certain matters, so far as reasonably practicable, in respect of existing houses, including the provision of a separate water-closet. In both categories, there may be many cases where the local authority has felt that it just could not take the powers, where it has not been reasonably practicable because of expense. In these cases now, local authorities will say that it is reasonably practicable for them to do so because the owners can obtain improvement grant.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has not even read the Amendment. The Amendment says
in relation to which a notice to provide a water-closet has been or may be given".
At the moment, I am concentrating on "has been given". That means that the


local authority has already decided that it is reasonable and practicable. Will the Joint Under-Secretary answer that?

Mrs. McAlister: In the constituency which I represent, there is a very large proportion of disrepair certificates in force at present, whereby the landlords have lost some rent. It seems to me that, under the terms of this Clause, a landlord can now receive public money to put the property in some sort of order and then put up the rent. Can that be right?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The attitude of the Joint Under-Secretary is the most astonishing that I have encountered in this Committee. What he is saying is that we must deliberately encourage people to break the laws which we have passed. Not being content with inciting law breaking, he goes on to say that we should reward the law breaker. Could anything be more ridiculous? I should have thought that that argument does not stand examination one moment.
I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland has to say about this. I do not know whether he is looking thoughtful or whether he is looking tired, but he certainly ought to have something to say about the Amendment. Sitting next to him is a man who is encouraging people to break the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is quite correct in saying that a notice can be served on a man to provide a water closet in a house, he can refuse to do the work and can apply to the Minister for the money with which to do it. As has been said, the local authority may not decide to serve such a notice if the man could not afford to provide it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I thought that the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the local authority-would not serve such a notice unless he was able to do it.

Mr. Browne: I said, if it is reasonably practicable.

Mr. Willis: According to what the hon. Gentleman said, "reasonably practicable" means whether the man is in a position to afford to be able to do it or not. Where a man is able to do the job

he should not get the grant. That is perfectly reasonable, is it not? The argument of the hon. Gentleman was that we do not want to deny a grant to a man who cannot afford to do the necessary work. The Amendment does not deny him the opportunity of getting a grant. If the Amendment is too wide with the inclusion of the words "may be given", surely the words could be left out and the Amendment limited to the words "where an application has been given".
The hon. Gentleman cannot simply dismiss the Amendment altogether. He can say that the wording is too wide and that as it is at present there is a possibility of some of the things happening which he fears might happen. But if the deletion of the words "may be" removes those fears, I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree that the Amendment would at least be a step in the right direction. We should prevent people who ought, in accordance with the law, to have carried out certain jobs but have not done so from getting money.
Is not the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the Amendment at all? He cannot just dismiss it, because a very good argument has been adduced in support of it. He is seized of the matter and ought to be a bit more forthcoming and open about it and say that, in view of the argument adduced, he will consider the matter and, if necessary, delete the words which seem to widen it in the direction which he fears. I am sure that if he did that he would find it very difficult to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Browne: There is a clear division of opinion between us. We want to help—

Mr. Willis: The law breaker.

Mr. Browne: —Scotland to get more w.c's. The Opposition take the slightly different view that if there is an obligation, it should be carried out without any help. We cannot go any further in this matter because, clearly, there is a division of opinion.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 189.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
14.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Ainsley, J. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mahon, Simon


Albu, A. H.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mason, Roy


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, Sir F.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Benson, Sir George
Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.


Beswick, Frank
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Mulley, F. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Holmes, Horace
O'Brien, Sir Thomas


Bowles, F. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Boyd, T. C.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Oram, A. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hoy, J. H.
Owen, W. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Parker, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Janner, B.
Paton, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Pearson, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, T. F.


Champion, A. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pentland, N.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Popplewell, E.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, A. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, H. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Reeves, J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, William


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Reynolds, G. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McInnes, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William


Finch, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Royle, C.




Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Swingler, S. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Skeffington, A. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Thornton, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sorensen, R. W.
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Sparks, J. A.
Usborne, H. C.
Winterbottom, Richard


Spriggs, Leslie
Viant, S. P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Warbey, W. N.
Woof, R. E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Weitzman, D.
Zilliacus, K.


Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Moore, Sir Thomas


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Alport, C. J. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Neave, Airey


Arbuthnot, John
Green, A.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimond, J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Ashton, H.
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Harris, Reader (Heston)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Anthony
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, R. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Peel, W. J.


Barter, John
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Batsford, Brian
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, I. J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pott, H. P.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Holt, A. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hope, Lord John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, M.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bingham, R. M.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Renton, D. L. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Howard, John (Test)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Russell, R. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Sharples, R. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Shepherd, William


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Speir, R. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Stevens, Geoffrey


Campbell, Sir David
Kaberry, D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Storey, S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kimball, M.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kirk, P. M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Cooper, A. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leburn, W. G.
Teeling, W.


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Temple, John M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McAdden, S. J.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Duncan, Sir James
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Wall, Patrick


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Erroll, F. J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Webster, David


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Fell, A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, C
Marshall, Douglas
Woollam, John Victor


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mathew, R.



Freeth, Denzil
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Division No. 47.
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Herbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Albu, A. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Probert, A. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hoy, J. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Reid, William


Benson, Sir George
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Reynolds, G. W.


Beswick, Frank
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Lawson, G. M.
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Champion, A. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, W. D.
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, G. R.
MacDermot, Niall
Sparks, J. A.


Cliffe, Michael
McInnes, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Coldrick, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mahon, Simon
Swingler S. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mason, Roy
Thornton, E.


Delargy, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edelman, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Fernyhough, E.
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Weitzman, D.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Gooch, E. G.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Anthony
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)




Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Parkin, B. T.
Woof, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.



Hastings, S.
Pentland, N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Rogers


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Popplewell, E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Crowder, Petre (Rulsilp—Northwood)


Altken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cunningham, Knox


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dance, J. C. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Davidson, Viscountess


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Deedes, W. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
de Ferranti, Basil


Armstrong, C. W.
Bryan, P.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Bullas, Wing Commander E. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barlow, Sir John
Butler, Rt.Hn.A.A. (Saffron Walden)
Drayson, G. B.


Barter, John
Campbell, Sir David
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Sir James


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Channon, H. P. G.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Beil, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Erroll, F. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Conant, Ma]. Sir Roger
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cooper, A. E.
Fell, A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Bingham, R. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bishop, F. P.
Corfield, F. V.
Freeth, Denzil


Body, R. F.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Garner-Evans, E. H.







George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Goodhart, Philip
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sharpies, R. c.


Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert
Shepherd, William


Graham, Sir Fergus
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, R. M.


Green, A,
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Gurden, Harold
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hay, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Storey, S.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hobson, John(Warwick&amp;Leam'gt'n)
Mathew, R.
Teeling, W.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mawby, R. L.
Temple, John M.


Holt, A. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hope, Lord John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornby, R. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Neave, Airey
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Howard, John (Test)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh,S.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)




Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, R. G.
Wall, Patrick


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Peel, W. J.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Johnson Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pitman, I. J.
Webster, David


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pott, H. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, P. M.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woollam, John victor


Lambton, Viscount
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)



Leavey, J. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leburn, W. G.
Rawlinson, Peter
Mr. Hughes-Young and


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 12, line 17, at the end, to add:
(4) An application under this section must also contain a statement either that the applicant is the occupier of the dwelling or that the occupier has consented in writing to the making of the application.
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee, Mr. Hynd, if this Amendment could be discussed with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in Clause 20, page 12, line 21, at end insert:
(2) The local authority must be satisfied that the occupier of the dwelling, if he is not the applicant, has given his consent in writing to the application.
Our Amendment meets the point raised by hon. Members opposite in the Amendment to which I have referred. It is right that the tenant should agree before the owner of a tenanted house makes application for standard grant. Our Amendment goes just a little further than the Opposition Amendment. The Opposition considered that it was sufficient to require the local authority to satisfy itself about the tenant's willingness. It is just

possible that the applicant might promise to produce such a letter and go ahead with the work but then fail to produce a letter. As a result, there might be difficulties between the tenant and the local authority. In our Amendment, therefore, we obviate this slight risk by requiring the notice of written consent to accompany the application or, failing this, a statement that the applicant is himself the occupier.

6.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: Again, we are pleased that the Minister has found it possible to accept the principle of our Amendment. There is little difference between the two Amendments and it is important that the occupant's consent should be known.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move in page 12, line 17, at the end, to add:
(5) Where the works include the provision of a hot water supply, their execution must include the connection of the supply to a sink as well as to the bath or shower and the wash hand basin.


This Amendment gives effect in what is, I am advised, slightly more effective wording to the wishes of hon. Members opposite in their Amendment in page 11, line 44, which was not discussed.

Mrs. McAlister: I am grateful that the Minister has accepted the principle of our Amendment. I may be guilty of oversimplification, but there was a time when I used to think that it would be extraordinary for a hot water supply to be in operation in a house but not to find its way to the kitchen sink or to the bath. Bitter experience, however, has taught me better. Different people have very different ideas of what is meant by a hot water supply. It was not long ago that communal taps disappeared from Glasgow—if, in fact, they have disappeared. The only difference was that there was no hot water in the taps. If public money is being spent, it is essential that this safeguard should be written into the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 12, line 17, at end add:
(6) An application under this section shall not be entertained if it relates to a dwelling provided after the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. Willis: The Amendment is put down, I imagine, on the supposition that houses built after 1944 should have the standard amenities. In my constituency, houses which were erected by a local authority did not have satisfactory facilities even for storing food. People put their food in the cupboard, but the butter melted, the meat went bad and all sorts of other things happened, because the cupboard was at the back of the fireplace in the sitting room. I wondered, therefore, whether the assumption which the Government are making was altogether a sound one when we find that even local authorities—and the Government themselves must have approved of the houses—can make the mistake of not providing these facilities, which—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is on the right Amendment. We are discussing the Amendment in page 12, line 17, to add the proposed subsection (6).

Mr. Willis: Yes, Mr. Hynd. It states:
An application under this section shall not be entertained if it relates to a dwelling provided after the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four.
The application relates to improvements to provide certain fixed standard amenities. I suggested that the Amendment was put down on the assumption that houses built after 1944 would have these amenities. I was pointing out that I did not know what led the Government to this conclusion, because even local authorities—and, I presume, the Government—have not been able to provide these amenities satisfactorily in my constituency, where houses have been built in which the facilities for storing food are far from satisfactory. Perhaps, therefore, the Joint Under-Secretary might offer a word of explanation.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I note that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary proposes in the Amendment to limit the grant to a dwelling house built before 1944. [HON. MEMBERS: "After."] It would seem to be before. May I ask why this date was chosen? It would seem as if it would exclude any flats or maisonettes which would come into being as a result of old property being converted. Surely it is wrong that that type of property should not attract grant.
I made the same point on Clause 4, which deals with houses in England and Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he would look into it. I do not know what conclusions he has reached. If he does not propose to give a favourable reply as regards Clause 4 I do not mind, because that applies to England. But I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will take my point and alter the Bill before Report so that converted property can attract the grant, that is, property converted right up to the time of the publication of the Bill, which I think was in November, 1958.
I beg my hon. Friend to do this and not to worry about what may be happening in England. We want to improve the Bill in relation to Scotland. If it is any help to my hon. Friend, I am quite prepared to take counsel with my Unionist colleagues to see whether we can get enough pressure brought to bear to ensure that this point is covered.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that the Bill will not apply to conversions made since 1944?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I do not know what the hon. Member may or may not understand.

Mr. Ross: This is important. If the hon. Member had been in the Chamber earlier he would have heard the Joint Under-Secretary tell me, in relation to the first Opposition Amendment, that if, as from now, a dwelling was provided as a result of conversion on improvement grant and there was an application thereafter for these standard amenities, a response would be forthcoming. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to reply to that point in relation to the wording of this proposed subsection and to state whether we are to take what he said earlier at its face value and whether this relates to conversions on improvement grants after 1944.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The Bill does not apply to conversions, but my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hitchison) is referring to houses converted, not necessarily with grant, since 1944 and which lack the standard amenities, and he thinks that there should be a grant up to the date of the Bill for those types of houses. We looked into this. We are most anxious, as we are throughout the Bill, to keep in line with England and Wales. We feel that there would be few, if any, houses provided— which I think is a better word than "converted" and means all sorts of ways of producing a house—since the war which lacked these standard amenities.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was talking about local authority houses. He has studied the Bill very thoroughly and I am sure that he knows that those do not come within its scope. Since we believe that there would be few, if any, of these houses, and since we want to keep in line with England and Wales, we think that the date which we have provided for in the Bill is the right one.

Mr. Ross: We cannot let the Joint Under-Secretary get away with that. When we were discussing the previous Amendment I objected to property being

dealt with in a patchwork way. I said that a property should be dealt with and looked at as a property and not just as one house in that property. The Joint Under-Secretary said at the time that there was nothing to prevent an owner of that property applying for and obtaining an improvement grant which would allow him to replan that property, and, where there were three houses, to cut one out and make the property into two houses. But the hon. Gentleman did not stop at that. He said that thereafter the owner could apply for a standard grant and get it.
In view of the fact that the two houses in respect of which there will be a request for standard amenities will be new houses provided since 1944, I want to know whether or not the Joint Under-Secretary is prepared to reconsider what he said. In other words, by moving the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman is denying the possibility of happening what he said would happen when he was replying to an earlier Amendment.

Mr. Browne: I must apologise. I think that the hon. Member is quite right. I replied wrongly that the standard grant was available to post-1944 conversions. It was not what I meant to say.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I merely want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary what he hopes to get out of the Clause, which says:
A local authority shall give assistance in respect of the improvement of any dwelling by any person …
I can remember a time when, in the House of Commons, we were considering the question of improvement grants and the Government were relying on the landlords of Scotland to modernise all their houses. Time and again the number of applications made under the Act which provided those grants has been quoted by my hon. Friends. That Act gave far better grants for modernisation than does the present Bill, and it provided the landlords with far better houses, yet the Joint Under-Secretary knows that the response from the landlords of Scotland was absolutely negligible. I say that the situation will be exactly the same this time in respect of this Bill. I have no


doubt that the Bill will be used by owner-occupiers, and to that extent I welcome it, but I object to this pampering of landlords who have let Scotland down in the past.
No adequate reason has been given by the Joint Under-Secretary why these provisions should apply again to landlords in Scotland. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many houses are capable of being dealt with in this way? We went to the considerable trouble in Scotland of having a special committee report on the question of modernising our homes. Its report is a very valuable document. I wonder what that committee would have thought of the Bill and of the suggestion, fifteen years after it had laboured and laid down a blueprint of what should be done to our homes, that we should have this tinkering bit of extra cash given for one or two things which a landlord might or might not do. The Clause is not sufficiently imaginative to ensure that the work which needs to be done in Scotland will be done. As long as we leave it to the private landlords in Scotland to modernise our homes, they never will be modernised. The Joint Under-Secretary must realise that.
7.0 p.m.
Can the Minister tell me how many houses in the rural areas will be dealt with under the Bill? We have discussed the question of the water closet. The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee surveyed and reported on the condition of housing in the rural areas, and its results are included in the Report on Rural Housing in Scotland. For the purposes of that survey the Committee took three typical parishes in Scotland in which housing was unusually bad. It was found that of the houses surveyed 33 per cent. had a water supply within the house and also a sink, 66 per cent, had a water supply outside the building only, 23 per cent. had a water closet, 48 per cent. had a dry closet and 29 per cent. had no sanitary conveniences.
Does the hon. Gentleman think this Clause will result in any improvements in rural areas or in the tenements of Glasgow? It will not start to do so. This is just window dressing for an election in which quite a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be tried and found guilty by the people who live in those same tenements in Glasgow and in the rural areas

and who have had no consideration from this Government in respect of their housing conditions.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Gentleman will know the facts about improvement grants. During the first five years of their operation 3,350 houses were completed and since then they have been running at a rate of 2,400 a year.

Mr. Ross: How many were tenements?

Mr. Browne: I cannot give that information. The hon. Gentleman then gave us details of bad housing conditions in the rural areas and asked if this Clause would effect improvements. Then he said it was window dressing. I cannot see the logic of the hon. Gentleman's mind. He either does or does not want Scotland's houses to be improved. This Bill is no fairy wand which will improve all the houses. What we hope to get from it is a better response than we have now both from owner-occupiers and landlords. Then the hon. Gentleman repeated the old business about our pampering the landlords who, he said, have let Scotland down in the past.
I beg the hon. Gentleman to realise that two wars and the restrictions put on the landlords have let the landlords down. He must realise that we are not doing something for the landlords. We are trying to bring some slight measure of elementary justice after the extraordinary difficult position in which they have worked in the last thirty years. We are putting the tools in their hands, and they will make better use of them with this Bill than without it.

Mr. McInnes: I would not have intervened if it had not been for the vigorous but synthetic defence made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I agree with the observations of my hon. Friend. The Minister fails to recognise that every Bill introduced by this Government relating to housing has been designed to give increased income to the landlords and property owners. We know perfectly well that, having got that increase, they have refused to carry out the repairs for which it was provided.
Let us take the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not think we should start to discuss that Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(RENT OF DWELLING IM PROVED WITH ASSISTANCE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.)

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, after the first "the", to insert "relevant".
This is a drafting Amendment for the sake of greater clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF STAN DARD AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THEM.)

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to subsection (5) of this section".
If it suits the convenience of the Committee, I think that this Amendment might be taken together with that in page 9, line 12.
The Committee will remember that earlier there was an Amendment to Clause 4 which excluded from the new scheme of standard grants all privately owned dwellings which were provided after the end of 1944. All that these Amendments do is to apply the same conditions to dwellings owned by a local authority.

Mr. Lindgren: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this principle has already been accepted by the Committee and as we have no desire to delay proceedings, we do not propose to object to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, after "provided", to insert:
for the exclusive use of the occupants".
This Amendment is as amended by a manuscript Amendment which has already been handed to you, Sir Robert, and which alters the second "the" to "its".

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I have not seen the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: It was handed in and I understood that it would be accepted. This is a principle which has already been accepted by the Minister and I understood that the manuscript Amendment would also be acceptable to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 12, at end add:
(5) An application under this section shall not be entertained if it relates to a dwelling provided after the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: I wish to raise a point which was mentioned in an Amendment standing in my name on the Notice Paper. It is a very technical point, which does not really go to the root of the Clause, but I would like the Minister to explain what the position really is.
I have in mind an old house which can, with the benefit of an improvement grant, be modernised and where standard amenities can be provided but which has in it a room, perhaps a basement, perhaps in a maisonette in a house such as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) mentioned during our earlier proceedings, one of those big Victorian houses where the basement cannot be made fit for human habitation under the terms of the Housing Act. It may be a scullery at the back of an old house, and it cannot be made fit for use.
As I understand the Clause, that house would not be covered by subsection (3) because the Minister could not be satisfied that the execution of the works would make the house fit for human habitation. Part of it would be fit, but in many cases it would not be possible to demolish the part that was unfit. Where the unfit part is an outhouse it could be done but an unfit basement cannot be demolished. The normal procedure under the housing Acts is for the local authority to make a closing order and presumably the closed part could still remain part of the dwelling.
In the event of a closing order being made affecting part of a dwelling, would the Minister approve an application for a contribution towards the provision of standard amenities for the rest of the dwelling? It would be highly undesirable for there to be any suspicion that the Minister was wriggling out of financial responsibility on a technicality. It is very important to clear up this point for the benefit of local authorities in cases of this sort. There may be many older houses in which this situation could arise.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said that he was raising, on this Question, a point that had been covered in an Amendment of his on the Notice Paper. Perhaps I may relate his remarks to that Amendment, because I find it a little difficult to reply on a Clause which refers to dwellings owned by local authorities. There is never any question of a local authority placing a closing order on part of one of its own dwellings.
The hon. Member has in mind a situation where one room in a privately-owned dwelling is made subject to a closing order, and he has asked whether a grant could be approved by the local authority and the Minister, if the rest of the dwelling were fit, despite the fact that one room was unfit.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman may be sailing rather close to the wind if he pins me down in that way. The question could still arise in the case of a house, if the local authority could not make a closing order when one of the rooms was unfit only in a technical sense.

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman in general terms. If there is a case where a room is unfit and is closed, nevertheless a grant can be made for the improvement of the rest of the house, provided that the rest of the house consists of a dwelling by itself, that is to say, that it is sufficiently large and can be made a satisfactory dwelling without the use of the closed part.

Mr. James Mclnnes: In the event of the local authority carrying out the work on an old house and then discovering that one of the rooms is not fit for habitation, would the Minister withhold the grant?

Mr. Brooke: I have some difficulty in pursuing this matter, because the Clause refers explicitly to local authority dwellings. I can hardly see how a local authority would be in the hypothetical position which the hon. Gentleman has just described, of having put in work on one of its own flats or houses and suddenly awakening to the fact that a particular room is unfit. I want to make sure that the Bill is administered reasonably, and I do not want to take points of that character against local authorities, so as to deny them grants that they


might reasonably think they were qualified for. I can only speak for England and Wales.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION UNDER S. 13.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Reynolds: I welcome the Clause because I believe that local authorities who have to carry out work on properties owned by them will regard it as a great improvement in helping them to meet the loss incurred in such work. It will replace the existing arrangements under the Acts of 1949 and 1954 when the Exchequer met 75 per cent. of the loss incurred by the council. This system led to considerable differences of opinion as to the calculation of the actual loss.
The proposal in the Clause is in rather different wording from that of previous provisions, and when I first read it I thought it meant a reduction in grant. I am satisfied with the result, now that I can understand the wording. In slightly different terms, it is a proposal, carrying the same amount of money, which was set out by the Labour Party in its housing policy"Homes of the Future," published about two years ago. I am glad that the Minister has accepted that suggestion and has brought it forward.
I am not happy about the breakdown of the £300 in subsection (3), although that is exactly double the sum provided under an earlier Clause. I do not know on what evidence the Minister considers £150 as necessary for the installation of a hot water supply. In most cases one would expect it to be done by something like multi-point heaters rather than by the installation of back boilers. I think that £150 is rather a lot of money, especially when compared with only £80 for a water closet and £50 for a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom. Has the Minister based this on examples of cost where local authorities have provided such amenities? The Clause seems to be unfairly weighted in favour of hot water, which could be provided for less than £150 in most instances.

Mr. H. Brooke: I will examine the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. With great perspicacity he will have perceived that the amounts here are double those in Clause 6. It might have been easier to have a a good discussion on the point on Clause 6. Having passed that Clause, I do not think I can alter these items in Clause 14.
5.30 p.m.
If the hon. Member looks at the Scottish Clauses, he will see that by one or two Government Amendments to be considered later they repeat the English Clauses relating to standard grants. I cannot say that these are exact figures. No one would say that. The Government had to think carefully of what figures to put in, and we thought these reasonable in the light of experience. I must take my stand on that. Unless they are definitely proved unreasonable, I think the Committee would be well advised to leave them as they are.

Mr. Reynolds: I shall have a look at the Scottish Amendments to see what they are.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 20.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, to leave out "shall" and to insert "may".
We are debating here our old favourites "shall" and "may"; in other words, whether the provision will be obligatory or permissive. I confess that I can argue with equal emphasis the case for whether it should be "shall" or "may". It depends entirely on the circumstances of each case. In this case we are dealing with housing. I regard local authorities as responsible, democratically elected bodies capable of facing their responsibilities and carrying out the duties which Parliament may impose upon them.
I think there is a degree of justification for the deletion of "shall" and the insertion of "may". I do not think we ought to advise local authorities in relation to housing matters. I think the Minister will agree that in this legislation, no matter how we may attempt to add this or take away that, or safeguard every conceivable angle in relation to the improvement of houses, there are certain circumstances that even Parliament in its wisdom may not be able to provide against or to safeguard. Therefore, it is desirable that local authorities, the people who will actually handle and give effect to this legislation and who have intimate knowledge of local problems, should have the power, the liberty and the responsibility of deciding. After all, they will be faced with problems and aspects of this matter which we cannot envisage this evening.
I am speaking here on behalf of the largest local authority in Scotland. Glasgow Corporation holds the view that as a responsible and democratically elected body it should have the permissive power. I think the Minister will agree that although in other pieces of legislation we have insisted on the word "shall", in housing legislation the permissive form

should be used. I hold in my hand the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, the consolidating Measure. In this there are over 200 "mays". Local authorities may do things, the Secretary of State may do things.
On page 71 the Act deals with Exchequer contributions towards losses incurred by local authorities. There the Secretary of State may approve proposals in that part of the Act for improvement proposals submitted to him by local authorities. Again, in the case of Exchequer contributions, the Secretary of State may approve any proposals for the improvement of dwellings. Again, too, a local authority may refuse to approve an application and the Secretary of State may give directions. Also the amount which may be paid by way of improvement grant may be approved by the Secretary of State.
Housing Acts, more so than any other Government legislation, have always given permissive power. In these circumstances I seek the deletion of "shall" and the substitution of "may" so that local government shall have the permissive right to grant or refuse applications.

Mr. William Hannan: I support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes) in this Amendment. I, too, admit that normally, depending on the circumstances, I should want to keep the word "shall", bearing in mind some of the things with which the Government themselves have to contend, such as the fact that the local authority may not be too anxious or too willing to meet the spirit of the Bill. On the other hand, under subsection (1) of the Clause there are only two matters to which the local authority must have regard. They are the matters referred to in subsections (2) and (3).
Glasgow is anxious to have the permissive term, because in its experience it has had other factors to consider in dealings of this character. One of its great problems, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, is the man of straw, the fellow who wants to do a quick deal. I know that financial standing is not specifically mentioned. The factors mentioned are the period during which the building will remain fit for human habitation and the provision as


to the applicant being the owner or lessee of the land. The corporations of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee are responsible bodies, housing or having within their confines a great proportion of the population of Scotland. Since they are responsible organisations, I feel in this instance that the balance might come down on the permissive term rather than on the word "shall". I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) have spoken for Glasgow primarily. I felt especially that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central was speaking perhaps a little more for Glasgow than for himself, because he said that there was a degree of justification for "may".
This is an absolutely key Amendment. It will not escape the attention of the Committee that we have not provided in the Bill, as we well might have done, that applicants for ordinary improvement grants should be entitled to grant, provided that they satisfy the relevant conditions. Under the existing scheme applicants for ordinary improvement grant do not always know where they stand. That is inevitable, because many points have to be considered in the greatest detail by the local authority and often the application for ordinary improvement grant is quite a complicated problem. This is not the case with the five standard amenities. They are so obviously essential that it is difficult to envisage any circumstance in which their provision would result in a misuse of public funds.
What is a local authority to do to satisfy itself before approving an application? The hon. Member for Maryhill mentioned subsections (2) and (3), but there is a stage before that. The local authority has first to accept that the application is a valid one. It has in this matter a decision to make. If I put in an application for a grant to provide satisfactory facilities for storing food, the local authority has to accept that that application is within the terms of the Statute. Therefore, it has a degree of control before it accepts the application as a valid one. Having considered the application and accepted it

as valid, the local authority can turn it down only on the two grounds specified in subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause.
7.15 p.m.
Therefore, for the standard grant scheme the application can quite properly be handled on a much simplified basis. The whole basis of the Bill is to make what is quite a rough and ready instrument so that it will be as easy as possible to get houses installed with the standard amenities.
I do not think that anyone would suggest that the standard amenities are not essential or that, to encourage their installation, it is wrong for the applicant to know, as far as possible, exactly where he stands. If it is simple to apply for the standard of facilities, if the applicant knows exactly where he stands, then we will overcome the difficulty of improvement grants where one has to do a great deal of work and then does not know whether one will get a grant. With the standard improvement scheme the applicant knows that, if he fulfils the conditions, he will get the grant and, if the local authority does not approve his proposals, then it has to say why and it must be for a definite reason.
On the ground of simplicity and on the ground that these standard amenities are necessary in any case to a suitable house, we feel that we should not consider departing from the principle of the Bill, which is quite different from the ordinary improvement grant, in that the local authority, subject to the specified conditions, "shall approve" and not "may approve".

Mr. James H. Hoy: I can quite well understand the arguments of my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment. I know that there is the difficulty that, if the wording is altered from "shall" to "may", certain local authorities may not carry out their duties. I can see the danger of that happening. When we have argued the respective merits of "shall" and "may" in the Scottish Grand Committee we have always been told by either the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General that "shall" and "may" mean exactly the same thing. Here is a very reasonable case, where the word "may" is proposed in substitution for the word "shall", to test the logic of the legal department of the Scottish Office. The Joint Under-Secretary has


now told us that "shall" does not mean "may", and we shall bear that in mind for the future. We know now that we must not give very much credence to any opinions that come from the legal department of the Scottish Office.

A mendment negatived.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 20, to leave out "and (3)" and to insert "(3) and (4)".

The Temporary Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendment in line 21, at the end to insert:
(2) The local authority must be satisfied that it is reasonably practicable to carry out the works specified in the application and t hereby to improve the dwelling.

Miss Herbison: The Amendment I have moved is a paving Amendment for the next Amendment. It goes back to some of the other Amendments which we have tried to get the Government to accept. As a result of the decision by the Government on the last Amendment, the local authority has a duty imposed on it to give a grant if a grant is asked for. We want to ensure that a grant is given only if there will be an improvement in the dwelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), during the discussion on a previous Amendment, drew attention very forcibly to the kind of dwellings where a grant might be made and where, as a result of it, there would be many other dwellings left without improvement at all. Indeed, he went so far as to say—and I agree with him—that, if money was spent on one dwelling, other dwellings might go into disrepair. The local authority must have the right to decide whether there will be an improvement of the building. If there will not be an improvement of the building, the grant ought not to be given.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Lady will see in Clause 19 the words:
… if an application in that behalf is made by that person to the local authority and approved by them before the works are begun and the works are executed to the satisfaction of the authority.
The hon. Lady will see that the works must be approved by the local authority, that the application must be a valid one for standard grant and that the works must be carried out to the satisfaction of

the authority. Therefore, we feel that we have already written into the Bill the object which the Amendment seeks to attain. The works would not be to the satisfaction of the authority if it were not reasonably practicable to carry them out. I appreciate the intention of the Amendment, but I feel that it is for the local authority to ensure before accepting an application that the application is within the meaning of paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause 19.
Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Lady's Amendment, which might give rise to too wide an argument, but I think she will see that the Bill provides for exactly what she has in mind.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary suggests that if our Amendment were accepted it might lead to too wide an argument. I am in favour of standard grants. However, it seems to me that all the Government's argument is on the side of the landlord and little or none of its help is going on the side of the local authority. I am all for widening the argument if it will safeguard the local authority and public money 1 suggest that we should be making doubly sure on these points if the Government accepted the Amendment.
We realise what the previous Clause does and we are not satisfied with it, and I again ask the hon. Gentleman to consider accepting, if not the words of my Amendment, words which would ensure adequate protection for the local authority, the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The Government ought not to have so much regard for some of the landlords.

Mr. Browne: I can assure the hon. Lady that we have given this matter very serious consideration. She is not right when she says that all the argument is on the side of the landlord and there is none on the side of the local authority. What we want to do, and what the Bill does, is to obviate any element of argument as far as practicable. We want each party to know where it is. The whole conception of the Bill is that a grant shall be given in certain conditions, and this would be endangered by acceptance of the Amendment.
The local authority has considerable powers in rejecting or declining to consider an application on the ground that it does not fulfil the statutory requirements. That having been decided, after


proper discussions with the applicant, we feel that the operation should be as rigid as possible and that there should not be further grounds for argument.
It is with some regret that I have to tell the hon. Lady that I cannot accept her Amendment. We have considered the matter most carefully.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, at the end to insert:
not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section forty-nine of the Act of 1950, which defines overcrowding) and will".
We consider that this is an Amendment which ought to be taken seriously by the Government. We want to ensure that no grant will be given for standard amenities if it leads to overcrowding. Section 49 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, contains very specific provisions against overcrowding. It is no wonder that a Scottish Act should have specific provisions against overcrowding. In Scotland we have the worst overcrowding not only in the United Kingdom but almost in the whole of Western Europe. We want to make absolutely certain that nothing under this Measure will lead to greater overcrowding than we have at present.
Section 49 of the 1950 Act reads:
A house shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons sleeping in a house either—

(a) is such that any two of those persons, being persons ten years old or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room; or,
(b)is, in relation to the number and floor area of the rooms of which the house consists, in excess of the permitted number of persons as defined in the Fifth Schedule to this Act."

In the Fifth Schedule we find the specific numbers which are allowed to each room.
We must always come back to this duty which is imposed on local authorities. We want to make sure that the local authorities have the right to turn down an application if the granting of it would lead to overcrowding.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I agree with the hon. Lady that we have to face the fact that far too many people in Scotland are living in overcrowded conditions. Without any party politics at all, all the

resources and energies of Governments and local authorities have been trying to cure this legacy of the past. Our second three-year phase in slum clearance schemes has now started, we have higher subsidies in Scotland, and we have also the new towns and the housing and town development Measure. All these things are designed to help.
We feel that it would be unjust to deny to some families the chance of a standard improvement which is available to other families. We realise, however, that it may well happen that in some houses, because of overcrowding, there will be no room to accommodate the standard improvements. We feel that we can do no more than leave it to those concerned, the local authorities, to judge each case on its merit in relation to what can or cannot be done by standard grant, deciding whether an application for a grant is a valid one or not. As a housing authority, the authority must do its best to find new homes for those who are in the greatest need.
In any case, the hon. Lady's Amendment is impracticable, because at any time before or after an improvement grant has been granted a grandmother may come to live with a family, a daughter may need a separate room or a married son may find a home for himself. We cannot draw a line at any time for any home as between overcrowding and not overcrowding. Basically, we should not mix up the problems of overcrowding with those of providing grants for standard improvements.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I fail to understand how we are mixing up this matter with overcrowding. The essence of what the Government have sought to do is that in every house, irrespective of size, there should be a bathroom. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he cannot make a bathroom without taking up space. The same applies to a water closet and other things.
The curse of Scotland is the fact that most of our housing accommodation consists of one or two rooms. It should be explained for the benefit of English Members that when we say one room, we mean one room, a family living within the four walls, having to eat there, sleep there, and live there.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: And die there.

Mr. Ross: Exactly.
These improvements will not be applicable to one-room houses, and they may not be applicable to two-room houses. It is those houses in Scotland which are presently overcrowded, and yet the Under-Secretary gaily says that we should not worry about that, and that, if making the improvements causes overcrowding, it is for the local authority to rehouse the family concerned. That amounts to providing a bathroom with a wash-hand basin and a bath at the cost of building a house at £1,700. That is an expensive way of providing these standard amenities.
Yet that is the argument of the hon. Gentleman. He says that another family should be overcrowded and have to go on the council waiting list, and that the council should provide a house. He has been so helpful about this. He has said that Scottish housing subsidies are higher than those in England. In England there are no subsidies and those in Scotland are lower than they were and are not related to the size of the house. Subsidies do not relate to overcrowding. A local authority in Scotland gets the same subsidy for building a two-room house as it gets for building a three-room house. Such a system encourages overcrowding and perpetuates what we are seeking to remedy.
In the circumstances, improvements which we all want cannot be introduced without reducing the living space available to a family. Does the hon. Gentleman think it right to make yet another family overcrowded? Neither I nor my hon. Friends think it right. What do the local authorities feel? It is the job of a local authority to get rid of overcrowding, but with these provisions, even though they know they are committing the crime of overcrowding another family, local authorities will have to agree to applications for improvement grants.
Surely that is not the Governments intention. Surely they will allow local authorities discretion so that they will not be compelled, even with the best intentions in the world, to aggravate one of Scotland's worst problems, overcrowding.

Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) tried to make out that these standard amenities would have to be installed within the existing curtilage of the building.

Mr. Ross: That is so.

Sir J. Duncan: He said that that would take space from existing living space. Let us examine that contention. The first words of Clause 19 are:
A local authority shall give assistance in respect of the improvement of any dwelling …
I cannot believe that any local authority will consider it an improvement to a dwelling to build a bathroom inside a one-room house.

Mr. Willis: The local authority has no-choice. The Clause says "shall", not "may".

Sir J. Duncan: It says;
… in respect of the improvement of any dwelling…
The hon. Member must read the words carefully. There then follows a provision:
… in respect of the cost of executing the works, if an application in that behalf is made by that person to the local authority and approved by them …
I cannot see that any local authority will approve the installation of a bathroom inside the existing curtilage of a one-room or two-room house. That would not be an improvement and no sensible authority could regard it as such. The argument of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is misconceived.

Mr. Ross: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman's entire argument is hinged on the interpretation of the word "improvement"?

Sir J. Duncan: Yes.

Mr. Ross: If a local authority has discretion to interpret whether what is to be done is an improvement, then if it decides that what is to be done is not an improvement it will have the right to turn down the application. That is what the hon. Member is saying. I should be very happy to hear that that was correct, and I hope that in due course the Under-Secretary will give us his view of that.

Sir J. Duncan: I cannot answer for the Under-Secretary. I am reading the Bill merely as a layman, but it seems that there must be an element of improvement before a grant can be given.
It is impracticable to date overcrowding from the date of the application. As my hon. Friend said, the house might be overcrowded one day and not overcrowded another day. If the Amendment were accepted, the landlord might press the tenant to evacuate a daughter of 17 who might have to live away from the family in order to ensure that the house was not overcrowded, thus permitting the landlord to get a grant. We do not want to split up families to get grants to improve houses.
I have no knowledge of conditions in Glasgow, but I assure hon. Members that in rural areas the Amendment would not work. There might be a house accommodating a farm worker with a small family. Farm workers move around, and the next farm worker to arrive at the house might have a large family. Between times, the improvement might be carried out. The landlord would have broken the terms of the improvement even though when he applied the conditions were correct. The next tenant might be a cattleman with five children—and most cattlemen seem to have large families. His tenancy would amount to a breach of the law.
I completely agree with the ideal behind the Amendment, because in Scotland we are a long way behind England in dealing with the problems of overcrowding and slums. We are all in favour of what the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has in mind. We want to get rid of overcrowding, and I believe that the Bill will be a great help towards that end.

Mr. McInnes: I wish that I could place the same interpretation upon the Clause as does the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). He seems to think that a local authority would be justified in turning down an application for an improvement grant if giving effect to the improvements as enumerated in the Bill would further restrict the accommodation and create a degree of overcrowding. If he feels that way, why does not he accept the Amendment, which makes provision against contingencies of that kind?

Sir J. Duncan: Because it is impracticable.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Member says that it is impracticable, but he speaks exclusively from the rural point of view. Let us consider the general position in Scotland and admit that we are far behind England. No one knows better than the Joint Under-Secretary that in Scotland there are about 1 million private houses which are either owner-occupied or rented, and that almost 600,000 of those are between 80 and 130 years old, being mainly the kind of house to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has referred—the one- and two-apartment house. We can visualise an application being made for an improvement grant in respect of a two-apartment house.
In some two-apartment houses even the provision of a wash-hand basin would considerably restrict the degree of accommodation. The Joint Under-Secretary has said that the local authority would decide, but less than half an hour ago 1 appealed to him to give local authorities permissive powers rather than to place an obligation upon them. I pointed out then, as I do now, that this is the sort of application which the local authority will be able to appreciate and understand much more than we can, and which it will be able to deal with in the light of the existing circumstances.
The hon. Member is fully conscious of the degree of over-crowding in our large cities. There is justification for the Amendment, because it clarifies the situation and gives a lead to the local authority. 1 cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman attempts to defend his case with a lot of nonsense and refuses to face the realities of the situation. He must recognise as well as any other hon. Member the degree of overcrowding in our cities, and he must appreciate that we ought specifically to stipulate that no improvement grant will be given if it creates a degree of overcrowding as defined in Section 49 of the 1920 Act.
That is a reasonable proposition, and I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary would not argue on behalf of overcrowding and say that it does not matter so long as the standard amenities of the house have been improved, even although there may be seven, eight, nine or ten people living in the house, which is not


uncommon in the City of Glasgow. We appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary to agree that if the making of an improvement grant in order to provide the standard amenities laid down in the Bill will create overcrowding in terms of the 1920 Act the local authority will be justified in refusing the application.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I support the Amendment. I ask hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), to believe that I speak in no spirit of rancour or anger on this matter when I suggest that many hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the circumstances under which many of our people have to live in Glasgow.
You come from Scotland, Mr. Hynd, and you will appreciate that a two-apartment house, in the context of this debate, means a two-apartment house; it does not mean a two-bedroomed house with a kitchenette and living room thrown in. It means that the house consists of two apartments in which a family consisting of a man. his wife and three or four children of school age. or even of working age, reside.

Miss Herbison: Those conditions could apply in a one-apartment house.

Mr. Hannan: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make my own speech. In the case of a one-apartment house, the housewife has to pull down a bed-settee every night because of the mixed sexes. She has to push it back up during the daytime, and even when it is closed up she has to walk round it in order to carry out her duties. I am trying in these few words to paint a picture of the exceedingly circumscribed space in which so many of our people have to live, in order that the Joint Under-Secretary may see the merit of the Amendment. After what I have said I hope that he will at least agree to reconsider the question. It is not good enough for him merely to advance the argument that it is for the local authority to decide, whenever it suits him, but to place obligations upon local authorities on other occasions. That will not do. We want to improve the awful conditions in which our people have to live, but we do not want to make overcrowding worse because of such improvements.

Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friends are trying to give local authorities a little more elbow room than the Clause at present provides. Local authorities will be exceedingly circumscribed in view of the conditions they must take into account in deciding whether or not they shall make these grants. There are only two conditions. The first is that
after the execution of the works specified in the application the dwelling will be in such a condition as not to be unfit for human habitation
and the second is that it is likely to remain in such a condition for fifteen years hence.
We all recognise that the term "not unfit for human habitation". in the legal sense, is an extremely wide one.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member may not realise that there is another Amendment on that point.

Mr. Hannan: Then I will leave the matter there.

Miss Herbison: There are many points that we must have cleared up. The Minister has praised the Government for what they have done for housing, and has talked about Scotland having higher subsidies than England. Will the hon. Gentleman state the subsidies as they exist at the moment and also tell us what they were in October, 1951? We find, upon examination, that houses built since 1951 are of a much smaller size—and this in a country where more larger houses are desperately needed.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to push on one side the question of overcrowding I find that Part IV of the 1950 Act is headed, "Prevention of Overcrowding" In fact there are 11 Sections referring to it. No wonder hon. Members on this side of the Committee are worried about overcrowding. The Minister said that if overcrowding resulted it was the duty of the housing authority to find another house for the family. Would not that be a grand situation for the landlord? His house would be put in better repair by a grant from the local authority, although it would be a smaller house. Then the local authority would have a duty to rehouse the people who had been living in that house and who had become overcrowded. So the family would be rehoused and the original house left vacant.
This would enable the landlord to sell it, because it would be uncontrolled. To hon. Members on this side of the Committee that seems wrong.
The Minister has said that though a house is not overcrowded at one time there is no guarantee it may not become overcrowded at another. It may be that a grandmother or someone else may come to live with the family. We are concerned with what has happened to the house immediately these amenities are provided. The local authority in my constituency, and, I expect, every other local authority which rehouses people, provides three-apartment houses for families of a certain size. On many occasions local authorities have accommodation available which they cannot give to a particular family because of its size. A local authority has a duty to ensure that a family which is rehoused is not overcrowded as a result. If the Minister is really concerned about improving our pool of houses and at the same time ensuring that overcrowding is not made worse, he should accept this Amendment.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said the Amendment was impracticable. He gave no reason to support that view. He felt that a local authority had sufficient power. But the Minister did not use that argument because he knows that it is one which he cannot use. A number of my hon. Friends have supported this Amendment. They speak from experience, particularly of the overcrowded conditions existing in Scottish cities. The Minister ought to have the same experience. I ask him to give further consideration to this Amendment, and I hope he may tell us that he will accept it.

Mr. J. N. Browne: It would not be proper for me to deal with details of subsidies or the size of houses as that does not come within the terms of this Measure.

Miss Herbison: But the Minister introduced the subject.

Mr. Browne: Yes. I made a passing reference, but I did not go into detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is incorrect in his interpretation of the word "improvement", but what he has in mind is more correct than hon. Members opposite may believe. The local authorities are the

judges of what constitutes a bathroom or any other kind of amenity. They have to accept or reject an application, and to decide whether it is valid under the terms of the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Amendment is impracticable. The Opposition wishes to say, "You cannot have a standard grant unless grannie goes"—that would be the effect of the Amendment. On the other hand a standard grant may be given because a room is available on one occasion. But what happens when, after the standard amenities are installed, the young daughter grows up sufficiently to need a separate room? We cannot mix this problem of overcrowding and the problem of standard grants. The two do not go together.
It may satisfy hon. Members opposite to recall that by accepting an Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) we have overcome the problem. If a house is badly overcrowded it will almost certainly be a tenanted house, and a tenant must give written approval for the provision of amenities. I cannot visualise any tenant giving written approval for something which will cause him a greater degree of overcrowding.
The Committee must exercise a sense of proportion. No one wishes to increase overcrowding, but there may be cases where it is better to find room for a W.C. than to make do without it. The situation that obtains in Scotland is better than it was, however bad it was before. At least we have built 300,000 houses since the war to house almost one-third of our population.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, after first "be" to insert:
in good and tenantable repair and".
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss the Amendment in line 25, after the second "that" to insert "repair and".
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will accept this Amendment. In most of our housing Statutes where we pay heed to the state of the house we are concerned not only that it shall not be unfit for human habitation but that it shall positively be
in good and tenantable repair.


The two things go together in the 1957 legislation and in the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, and I should have thought it the wish of the Government that those two conditions be fulfilled in this Bill. Surely it would be wrong were a local authority obliged to give a standard grant to the owner of a house, notwithstanding that the house was not in good and tenantable repair and, so far as the local authority knew, was not likely to be put into such a state.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State may take the view that if the house were not unfit for human habitation it would be in good and tenantable repair. But he can hardly maintain that view because, as I have said, in other Statutes these two sets of conditions are constantly brought together.
8.0 p.m.
I hope it will not be said that the standard on which it would be proper for the local authority to be obliged to give a standard grant is that the house is not unfit for human habitation notwithstanding that it was not in good and tenant-able repair, because that is something to which the owner could, perhaps, turn at some other time. Desirable as the standard amenities are, it is doubly desirable that they should be provided in a house that is, in other respects, in good and tenantable repair.
When we were discussing the previous Amendment, the Joint Under-Secretary talked of the grannie being evicted. I have in mind a case in my constituency only last week. A young couple, who now have two children, have been living with the wife's grandparents for the past live years in a room-and-kitchen house with no amenities at all. The grandfather died three years ago and the grandmother died last month, so that the young mother and her two children will have to be out of the house next month because it is now completely decontrolled.
The house is totally lacking in amenities—it is certainly not in good and tenantable repair—and it would be very bad to take the view that the owner should now be able to demand from the Hamilton Town Council a grant to improve the amenities of a house in respect of which he can claim any rent he likes to—and that, with no security to the future tenant. It would add

insult to injury were we to allow the law to stand as it would be if the Bill was not amended; to put on the local authority an obligation to accede to such a request for a grant in respect of amenities, notwithstanding the fact the house continues to be in a state of disrepair.
I feel that this is an Amendment to which the Government would not find it possible to object. I therefore hope that they will find themselves able to accept it.

Mr. J. N. Browne: This Amendment seeks to enable the local authority to require that before the standard grant is made the house shall be brought to a standard higher than, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said, that of being not unfit for human habitation. On the other hand, there are so many houses that need money spent on them that we feel it is clearly wisest—and I think that the hon. Member, who moved the Amendment very moderately, will agree—to use the money first on houses lacking standard amenities and not to seek to bring them up from the minimum standard as a pre-requisite to the w.c, the bath, etc., being installed. We are bringing them from the minimum standard to a much higher one by the installation of the standard amenities.
If the hon. Member will break down his thoughts on this matter he will realise that there are three types of houses to which the Amendment would apply. First, there is the house of the owner-occupier. Why should we now seek to put additional burdens on the owner-occupier? If the owner applies for a standard grant he obviously takes an interest and pride in his home. Its condition is his affair and not that of this House.
Next—and here, I know, hon. Members opposite will not join with me—there are the decontrolled properties. Decontrol has worked quite well. Hon. Members opposite have their own views about its wisdom, but I am sure they will allow it to be our philosophy on this side that the condition of the house is best left to agreement between owner and tenant.
The third type of house can only be the decontrolled property, and here, as the hon. Gentleman knows much better than I. the existing Statutes give the tenant his rights about the condition of the house. They are the rights that the


Amendment requires. On those grounds, we feel that the Amendment is unnecessary and that we would not be right to accept it.

Mr. McInnes: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the tenant's rights?

Mr. Browne: The tenant can apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair.

Mr. McInnes: But the Under-Secretary must be fully conscious of the fact that in Glasgow no less than 100,000 applications are made every year by the medical officer of health in an effort to compel owners to carry out these repairs. And he also knows perfectly well that the owners just ignore the local authority's notices.

Mr. Browne: We want to get the standard amenities in, and if we set too high a standard we shall fail in that.

Mr. Lawson: This is the point to which I was referring earlier. My hon. friends are trying to give the local authority more elbow room than the Clause allows. The term "not unfit for human habitation" is so wide that many of us, when we are told that a certain room or house is so regarded, sometimes stand aghast at what is covered by those words.
I can think of a house—so-called, because it is actually a shop that has been converted into a house. The front room is the front shop, and the other room is the back shop. According to the measurements of what comprises a room, the front and back shops make up two rooms. That place is regarded as not unfit for human habitation, but to my mind it is very unfit. However, as it is so classified, if the landlord were to make an application to the local authority for a grant towards the standard amenities, then, unless the place is not to be available fifteen years hence, the local authority cannot refuse the application.
A variety of factors must enter into a local authority's consideration of whether or not to make a grant. If the term "not unfit for human habitation" were much more precise, if it meant a house that we here would regard as being fit for human habitation, if it meant a common-sense standard, there might be some justification for this Clause being drawn so tightly, but we all know of the sort of places there are that can be and

are regarded as not unfit for human habitation.
That being so, the local authority will have almost no choice at all. If it cannot say, specifically, that a house is unfit for human habitation then, apart from the fifteen-year provision, it has no room for refusing to make the grant, and will be put in a most invidious position.
I should like the local authority to be put in a position to judge whether or not certain houses could, with advantage to a neighbourhood, be improved. A certain group of houses in a certain area might be an eyesore. The local authority may have plans for getting rid of them, while having good reasons for not announcing its plans. But the Clause gives local authorities no scope at all. Unless they can say that the house is unfit for human habitation, they have to agree to make a grant, and I think that is very unfair indeed on the local authorities.

Mr. T. Fraser: Would the Joint Under-Secretary tell me if I am right in thinking that his argument against this Amendment is that it is right and desirable that, in the case of a house which has a leaking roof, or the gable end of which is allowing water to permeate and run down an inside wall, or of which the chimney top is disintegrating, and in respect of which the medical officer has already served a notice upon the owner to carry out repairs and the owner has declined to give effect to the direction of the medical officer, if that owner says "I want a grant to put in a water closet," or "I want a grant to put in a bath, "the local authority is to be obliged to give him some of the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money for the purpose simply because the owner will not carry out the duties which Statutes have already put upon him to carry out those repairs and bring the house back into "good and tenantable repair"? Am I right in thinking that what the Joint Under-Secretary is arguing is that that is a desirable state of affairs, which we should do nothing to disturb by this Amendment?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I had intended only to reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but, if the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) will allow me, I will speak also on behalf of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. The points are very similar.
The question raised is what is meant by the words "unfit for human habitation," and I would say that this is a very wide phrase. It goes back to the Act of 1950 and even to 1930, if we want to find the original definition, which is not really a definition, but a so-called definition. It is incorporated in Clause 29 (2) of this Bill, and takes us back to Section 184 (2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which provides:
In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a house is fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to the extent, if any, to which by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects the house falls short of the provisions of any building regulations in operation in the district.
That gives the local authorities considerable elbow room, and I think that in certain areas they have taken advantage of it.
Accordingly, in a number of the type of cases which the hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned, a local authority would be justified in saying that the house was unfit for human habitation. If the repairs needed are minor, they would not, but, surely, if a house does need a certain amount of repair, and the tenant cannot get the landlord to do them, is that an argument for depriving the tenant of a bathroom if the landlord is willing to put it in? What the hon. Member's argument comes to is that, if a landlord will not do the repairs and help the tenant that way, we must either stop or discourage the landlord from helping the tenant by putting in a wash hand basin or a bathroom.

Mr. Hannan: May I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland this question? Does his argument amount to this—that a man who has no soles in his shoes should carry an umbrella?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not really answered the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), which was quite a simple one. My hon. Friend asked him a question. Is it not rather ridiculous that a local authority cannot compel a man to make a house habitable, as many of us would wish to see it made habitable, but can be compelled to pay a grant to the same man in order to provide a bathroom?
I am bound to say that in some houses I have seen, in which water was pouring through the roof, I could hardly see the need for a bath at all. The tenants could get one at any time, because the landlord would not repair the roof. Does not this place the local authority in a very difficult position? It cannot get the necessary improvements done, but it is compelled under this Clause to pay to get something done which we all think is necessary. Surely, the local authority ought to be able to get both things done, and that is what my hon. Friend has been saying.
If the public are to be asked to provide money with which to provide these amenities—and we are not against that—surely the public have a right to say that the houses in which these amenities are provided will at least be put in "good and tenantable repair." That is a perfectly reasonable request, and I should have thought that it was the duty of Parliament, in looking after the taxpayers' money to ensure that it was, in fact, spent in this way. I cannot see the need for putting in bathrooms in some of the houses I have seen where water was pouring through the roof every time it rains, and that is perfectly true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) knows properties in Edinburgh where that is the situation, and of other cases where conditions were so bad that one could never see across the room because of the smoke filling it. In plenty of tenement houses in Edinburgh, the top flats are so bad that one can hardly see across the room for smoke. Surely the local authority ought to be compelled to do something about that if, at the same time, it is compelled to pay others to provide these amenities? What is proposed in the Amendment seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable request, and I should have thought that the Government would have accepted it.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am sorry to take up more time, but this is rather an important Amendment. The Solicitor-General for Scotland, I thought, pushed this aside much too easily and carelessly. He gave us his definition of a house fit for human habitation, but he did not say anything about a definition of the words "good and tenantable repair" in the Amendment, or what is normally meant in Statutes by those words. If he had done


that and had looked up the Statutes to see what these words really mean and had given us a definition, it might have been very difficult for the Government to resist the Amendment.
May I ask the Solicitor-General or the Joint Under-Secretary if, under this definition, a local authority has to be satisfied that a house is not unfit for human habitation, and also that it is likely to remain in that condition and be available for use for a period of not less than fifteen years? Would the Solicitor-General say that the town clerk of Hamilton, or the town clerk of any local authority, would be entitled to say to an applicant for a grant, notwithstanding that the house is not unfit for human habitation, but because, in fact, it is not in "good and tenantable repair," that in the view of the local authority it is not likely to remain fit for habitation for fifteen years? If the house is not in "good and tenantable repair" now and there is no offer to put it into good and tenantable repair, it is reasonable to assume that the house will not survive in this condition for another fifteen years. Would not the Solicitor-General agree to that? If he does not, I should be surprised, but if he does, I do not know why he resists the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather that what the Solicitor-General is saying is that we ought to realise, from a practical point of view, that there is more likelihood of getting a water closet or a bath put in if we do not insist on the house being put into "good and tenantable repair" as well. That is the first point, is it not?
The second point which arises, if he rejects my hon. Friend's Amendment, is that there is no more hope of the landlords doing it if they are asked to do both. If both those points are correct, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please advise all his colleagues and the Tory Central Office not to talk such nonsense when they are discussing Labour's programme of handing over these properties to the local authorities, which will both repair them and keep them in good and tenantable repair?

The Solicitor-General: To deal, first, with the point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), there are cases where the disrepair is such that it would be perfectly clear that the house.

if not repaired, would be unfit for human habitation in fifteen years. In that sort of case, the local authority can say so. There are, however, cases where there is disrepair of a minor character, and on the available facts it could be said that, even so, they would still be fit for human habitation.
With regard to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), my argument was that it seems to me illogical to stop a local authority helping a tenant to get a bathroom or some other amenity merely because his landlord, in some minor respect, has not carried out certain repairs.

Mr. Willis: Minor?

The Solicitor-General: The effect of the Amendment would be that if the property has to be and has to continue to be in good and tenantable repair, then minor disrepair is enough to take it out of that category and prevent the grant being given. In the cases to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred—rain falling through the roof and making the house a bathroom already, and that sort of thing—a local authority would be justified in saying that that is unfitness for human habitation and the houses would not qualify.
As regards the final remarks made by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire, I have no doubt that the persons to whom he referred will see his remarks in HANSARD tomorrow.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: Under Clause 20, standard grant shall be given where it is established that the house will be fit for human habitation and will last for fifteen years. I realise that, under the Clause, if there is a conflict, the local authority will have to give in writing its reasons for refusing grant, but, in my view, that is not good enough. In all these cases where Government Departments, local authorities and administrations generally impinge upon the individual, the individual should have a definite right of appeal to an independent tribunal or court.
In this instance, the local authority might be quite willing, in its heart, to give a grant but might feel that the building would not last fifteen years. The applicant might be sure that it would last for fifteen years. What happens in this conflict? In my view, there should be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. In this case, I suggest the sheriff. I should be very glad if my right hon. and learned Friend would look into this point and see that the citizen will not be put at a disadvantage or be bullied or deprived of a right which is part of the birthright of every British subject.

Mr. Lawson: I am concerned with subsection (4) but from rather a different angle. I do not at the moment say that I quarrel with it, but I should like some explanation of it. In the situation here, a local authority can now be compelled to make a standard grant, if the conditions are fulfilled. Where a local authority, for one reason or another, considers that the grant ought not to be made, it can be compelled also to give the reasons in writing. There may be very much to be said for this, but I am curious to know why, in those circumstances, a local authority should be compelled to do what it is not usual for authorities to have to do.
For example, we have had a case brought to the notice of the House during the past few days which arose because a member of the Government refused to give an explanation why he took a certain decision. It is characteristic of Ministers usually that they refuse an explanation even to Members of Parliament who may seek to question them on various matters. I myself asked a Question only yesterday on a certain matter regarding ambulances in Scotland, and I was refused an answer on the ground that no details could be given. Here we have a situation where a Member of Parliament can be refused information by a Minister on matters of very great concern to himself and his constituents. A member of the Government may absolutely refuse, and be upheld by the House in his refusal, to say why he arrived at a certain decision. There is no question of challenging this. ft is right, and I understand that the practice will remain.
Where a landlord or owner of property makes an application for one of these grants and the local authority turns it down, the authority must give an explana-

tion if the person asks for it. That may be a good thing, but I should like to hear the justification for it in this case. Why the local authority, and why in these circumstances? I can think of instances where it might be quite advantageous or quite right and sensible that a local authority should refuse to give the information. For instance, an application might be made in respect of a block of houses which were at that stage habitable and were considered reasonably good structurally, but which within the next five or six years, perhaps, the local authority might wish to condemn.
There must be a very great deal of property which local authorities have earmarked, without doing it publicly. In such a case, the authority would quite justifiably refuse a grant on the ground that, within fifteen years, the property would not be available for letting; but it may not wish to say so. If it said." It is our intention to condemn this property in five or six years' time", a situation may arise which is all too common, namely, that the landlord may regard the property as no longer worth putting money into and it may be allowed to deteriorate.
That is the kind of position which may very well arise. A local authority may wish to withhold information, but by being compelled to give the information a seal, in effect, is put on property which otherwise might have five or six years more life ahead of it had minor repairs been done to it so that it was kept reasonably fit for habitation. Once an advance notice, so to speak, goes out that this is the intention of the local authority, a large number of landlords will treat that property as no longer worth bothering about and we shall find that not even minor repairs will be done.
That is the kind of situation in which local authorities may, judicially and wisely, refrain from giving information If this is one case, there can be others I should be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary can give an explanation on this matter.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: In subsection (2) we find the words,
not to be unfit for human habitation.
Why must we have this double negative? If there is a standard by which the words "unfit for human habitation" can be


judged, surely the same standard can determine whether a house is fit for human habitation. That being so, I cannot see any point in cluttering up the Clause with this double negative.

Mr. J. N. Browne: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I should like to take advice. If the Bill should be amended in any respect, we still have opportunities to amend it.
We have given careful consideration to the question of appeal, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison). The whole essence of the matter is that an appeal procedure would be inconsistent with the practical operation of the standard grant scheme by local authorities and also with the principle of local authorities' responsibility for expenditure from the rates.
There are two steps towards the granting of the standard grant. First, the application has to fall within Clause 19 (1, a) and (1, e) before the local authority can even consider it for grant. Before the local authority considers it for grant, it must judge, for example, what are satisfactory facilities for storing food.
Secondly, having cleared the first hurdle that the application is a valid one, the local authority must be satisfied about the ground of unfitness after completion of the work, about availability for at least fifteen years or, if the applicant is not the true owner, that he is a fifteen years lessee. If the local authority had in mind that the house would be condemned by it within a shorter period than fifteen years, it would say so and that would be the ground on which it could turn down the application. The house would not be available as a house for fifteen years.
In some cases there may be ground for honest disagreement. There is nothing to prevent the applicant from seeking to start a court action on the ground that the local authority was not fulfilling its statutory duty, but an element of discretion must be given to the local authority, and if the local authority had honestly applied its mind to the matter it would seem doubtful whether the applicant could establish a case. It is not for me, however, to say what view the court would take in any particular case, but if the applicant could show that the local authority had acted injudiciously or from

improper motives or had evidence to the effect that it had not applied itself to a consideration of the matter on which, under the Bill, it is required to base its decision, then the court may declare its decision void. Again, my right hon. Friend has default powers, but I have complete confidence, as I am sure has the whole Committee, that he will never have to use them under the Bill.
The real practical remedy, as with so many facets of local authority life, is to discuss the matter with a responsible official and, if necessary, to make representations to local councillors. The sums involved are not large. A local authority whose expenditure is 75 per cent. grant-aided will, doubtless, more than offset its one-eighth share in the total expenditure through increased rateable value. In any case, local authorities are responsible bodies and have every interest to see that improvements to houses are made.
In coming to our conclusion, we had all these considerations in mind. Furthermore, there is the necessity to give a written statement. This is imported from the present improvement grant conditions. In the recent Bill, we had the provision that the local authority should give its reasons in writing. I regard this as a good thing. It is at least an element of fair play and it places a tool or a weapon, whichever way one likes to look at it, in the hands of the applicant to use either to put matters right by bringing democratic pressure upon the local authority or, in the last resort, to consider whether action is worth while.
The Government are willing, as we have shown, for example by the Building (Scotland) Bill, which we discussed last week, to write in an appeal to the sheriff, but as I have explained, it is not appropriate in this instance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 21.—(AMOUNT OF STANDARD GRANT.)

Amendments made: In page 12, line 44, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-five".

In page 13, line 5, at end insert:
(b)by five pounds for that mentioned in paragraph (b).—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 23.—(EFFECT OF STANDARD GRANT ON LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 13, line 40, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) Where, at any time within three years after the making of a standard grant in respect of a dwelling, an application for an improvement grant is made in respect of that dwelling and the application contains a statement of the cost incurred in executing the works in respect of which the standard grant was made, subsection (4) of section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1950 (which prevents such an application from being entertained unless the estimated amount of the relevant expenses is not less than one hundred pounds or such other amount as may be prescribed) shall have effect, in relation to that application (or, if the dwelling is not the only one to which the application relates, in relation to the application so far as it relates to the dwelling) as if the amount specified in or prescribed under that subsection were reduced by the cost incurred as aforesaid.
The Amendment concerns a simple point. At present, no application for ordinary improvement grant can be entertained unless the total cost of the work is over £100. By the Amendment, if the work is done with standard grant aid, the cost of the work within three years can be treated as meeting this qualification in whole or in part.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1950 RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, to leave out subsection (2).
As I understand the Bill, subsection (2) proposes to change the term of years in Section 114 (1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. Therefore, we should consider its effect. Its purpose is to reduce from 20 to 10 years the length of time for which certain conditions shall apply. I might perhaps remind the Committee what exactly are the conditions that are now being changed.
The first condition is that the dwelling shall not be used for purposes other than 1hat of a dwelling-house. The second is that the dwelling shall be occupied by the owner or tenant—in other words, it

shall not be sold. The third fixes the amount of the rent, which is exceedingly important. The fourth simply requires the owner or occupier to say that these things are being done. The fifth is that in all respects the house shall be maintained in a state in which it is fit for human habitation.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I understand that there is agreement to discuss with the present Amendment the following five Amendments: in page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (3); in line 39, leave out subsection (4); in line 45, leave out subsection (5); in page 15, leave out lines 5 to 12; in page 15, leave out lines 13 to 17.

Mr. Willis: That is agreeable to me, Sir Gordon.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: May I get it quite clear. Sir Gordon, how many Amendments we are to discuss together?

The Deputy-Chairman: In addition to the present Amendment, we are discussing the next one and the last four on the Clause.

Mr. Willis: The next of the conditions is that the house shall be kept fit for human habitation. I would draw the Joint Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that those are the exact words which I asked should be used in an earlier Clause, rather than that we should have a double negative. Apart from that, it is a very desirable thing to do. The last paragraph, (f), says:
in the event of a tenant assigning his interest in, or otherwise parting with, the possession of, the dwelling, it shall not be lawful for any person in consideration thereof to make any payment other than rent or for the tenant to receive, directly or indirectly, any such payment.
All these are very desirable conditions to place upon a person who is receiving improvement grants and it is difficult to understand why the Joint Under-Secretary of State, at this stage, should wish to limit them.
These conditions were laid down in an earlier Act. We had a considerable discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee about them and particularly about the length of time during which they should


apply. The argument was that if public money was to be spent in this way we should insist that these conditions should apply for a period of twenty years. That was the decision of the House of Commons.
I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee in a long argument justifying each of these conditions. I am sure that the Committee would agree that they are very desirable conditions and that we should try to maintain them for as long as possible. Unless the Government can give good reason to the contrary, we should insist that these conditions should remain.
The second Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (3), and that subsection seeks to substitute for Section 114 (1, b) of the 1950 Act a paragraph (b) which enumerates certain conditions governing letting. Under the new proposed subsection
the dwelling shall, at all times at which it is not occupied … by the applicant … or by a person who on the death of the applicant …
and so on
…be let or kept available for letting.
I cannot see the purpose of changing the wording of the original paragraph (b) in this fashion.
The original paragraph simply states
the dwelling shall not be occupied except by the owner thereof or a tenant.
That is fairly wide.
I am always very suspicious of the Government, as the Under-Secretary knows, and with very good cause. I do not know whether they have any ulterior motive, but there does not appear to be any good reason for Changing the existing subsection. It was intelligible and it sought to achieve a specific object. Why bring in this matter of letting? Why substitute these words for words which I as a layman could understand? As the Under-Secretary knows, I am not good at understanding Bills. Why substitute all this which is so difficult to follow? Some reason must be given to us. The most important thing is the first Amendment, which cuts down the time from 20 to 10 years in respect of the important conditions imposed upon the person benefiting from an improvement grant.

8.45 p.m.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Sir Charles, may we be clear about what Amendments we are taking together?

The Chairman: With this Amendment we are taking the one immediately following, that is, in line 16, and the first four Amendments in page 657 of the Notice Paper, which will fall if this one is not accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Hannan: I am grateful that this point has been made clear, Sir Charles. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to the 1950 Act, which all hon. Members recognise as the Bible for Scottish housing. Section 114, to which all these Amendments refer, is a most important one. It lays down the conditions to be observed with respect to dwellings, and more particularly with regard to improvement grants.
Taken together, this series of Amendments vitiates the entire Clause. It means that we are getting a new Clause written into the Bill. The Solicitor-General for Scotland should be here because there are phrases in this Clause which, with all due respect, to the Joint Under-Secretary. we shall want to have explained, for example, the question of voluntary alienation; that is, the repayments which those who have received grants should make to the local authority. We want to know what this means.
In regard to the Amendment which seeks to delete subsection (4), I want to refer to the cross-reference in Section 114 of the 1950 Act. Subsection (2) of that Section states that in the event of a breach of any of the conditions to which my hon. Friend has referred
… or in the event of the voluntary alienation of a dwelling by the owner thereof during the said period, the following provisions shall have effect …
that is, that the proportion of any sums paid by the local authority by way of improvement grant, or the compound interest on that grant shall—this is imperative—
… on being demanded by the local authority, forthwith become payable to them by the owner for the time being of the dwelling.
This Bill proposes to change what that Act says, and subsection (4) of the Clause states:
So much of section one hundred and fourteen of the Act of 1950 as requires the


owner of a dwelling in respect of which assistance has been given under section one hundred and eleven of that Act to repay to the local authority in the event of the voluntary alienation of the dwelling … shall cease to have effect.
This is the opposite. From what? From what the Act of 1950 provides. There must be some great, compelling reason for such a fundamental change in the Bill compared with the 1950 Act. I have had these laymen v. the Solicitor-General for Scotland jousts upstairs in Committee before, so I made some research and 1 found that the meaning of the word "alienation", according to the encyclopædia, is the action of transferring anything to another.

Miss Herbison: Sale.

Mr. Hannan: Yes, but there is something further to it than merely selling. What is meant by "voluntary alienation"? Is this not something to do with people going bankrupt? We want to know whether that has any connotation with this, because if that happened we should in the Bill be providing a loophole for those who get grants to sell the property. If they go into liquidation or go bankrupt, it means that the local authority would not have the same standing as all creditors have in Scotland, and in England for that matter
I may be completely wrong. I am probing. We want to be very sure about what we are doing. If "voluntary alienation" means, as I think, going bankrupt, what is the position of local authorities? They are compelled under the Bill to give grants. They ought to have the same safeguards as any other creditors in the matter of the repayment of those grants.
The truth is, is it not, that again the Government are erring on the side of those who have property, the "haves"? They are not thinking fundamentally of the responsibilities which they have to the population.
One could refer in passing to the evasion of death duties, capital appreciation, dividend stripping, and so on. If something of the character that I am suggesting gets into the Amendment, then we shall want a good answer. We believe that this is not even a subsidy. It is a scheme for giving free gifts to the owners of property which is not worth improving.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) because he is wrong about voluntary alienation, at any rate in one particular, as I shall try to show. Section 111 of the 1950 Act, which makes improvement grants available, says that if grants are made certain conditions have to be observed. They have to be observed for a period of years which we might say at the moment is in dispute. It is twenty years at this moment. In ten minutes' time or twenty minutes' time, or even half an hour's time, it may be ten years.

Mr. Willis: Not until the Bill becomes an Act.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: At any rate, the period is in dispute. For that period certain conditions have to be observed. Firstly, the house has to be occupied as a private dwellinghouse. Secondly, it has to be occupied by the applicant or by a member of his family or, on the death of the applicant, by another member of his family or by his heir, or it has to be let to a tenant or be occupied by a farm worker who is occupying it by virtue of a service tenancy.
Now I come to the phrase "voluntary alienation". If the owner during his lifetime wants to pass the estate to his heir, I understand that is a situation which is covered by the term "voluntary alienation." Under the terms of Section 114 of the principal Act, on demand by the local authority this heir has to repay the appropriate proportion of the improvement grant, plus compound interest.
Why should that be done in the case of a gift to a member of the family? Perhaps the head of the family is old and unable to look after the estate, or he may have moved away from it. Surely it is in the interests of good estate management that he should be encouraged to pass the estate on to a younger man who will be able to look after it properly. If it is the son taking over the estate, he has to observe all the conditions laid down in the 1950 Act. It may be that the farm cottages will still have to be let to farm workers in pursuance of service tenancies, and the appropriate rental may be only 7s. 6d. a week. Why should that son, on receiving a free gift from his father, have to repay the grants, with compound interest, to the local


authority? I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.
My second point is that 1 have found that in Scotland the county councils vary very much in their interpretation of the provision in Section 114 (2) of the 1950 Act, which lays down that a proportionate amount of the improvement grants shall be repaid on being demanded by the local authority. Some county councils have said that they are required by that provision to demand that the grants shall be repaid even if they think it is unjust, even if they think it is not making for good estate management and even if they can see no valid reason why that should be done. Others say that they have to decide whether to demand repayment, but they do not choose to do so. We find one practice in the Kingdom of Fife and another in Perthshire; indeed, the practice varies widely.
My third reason is that, although I do not say that we ought to follow slavishly what happens in the case of England and Wales, this provision does not appear in legislation for England and Wales. Since it is Government money which is involved, we ought to have the same conditions in Scotland in this respect as in England and Wales. Consequently, I see no reason at all for what is proposed, and my object in rising is to express my opposition to the Amendment which seeks to leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where he got his definition of "alienation"?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I did not get the definition from anywhere. I gave an interpretation of the words which I understand to be correct. It means parting with possession of, and, since it is voluntary alienation, it includes giving a free gift to a member of one's family or to anyone else.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: As the person responsible for this part of the 1950 Act—and I mean literally that I was responsible for including this provision which was not in the English Measure —I can explain the meaning much more easily than by dealing with the technical terms of the Bill. It struck me that we were putting public money into improving

property for the good of the nation, that that was a good thing, but that there was no reason why the owner of the property should immediately cash in and sell not only the property but the Government grant as well. I thought that if someone were to sell the Government grant, the Government should at least be able to claim back a proportion, according to the time the money had been outstanding.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Would it not have been satisfactory to have used the word "sell", which would have avoided all these difficulties?

Mr. Woodburn: If there is a difficulty. I must admit technical responsibility for the drafting, but the original instructions were as I have indicated. The legal authorities, of course, turned my instructions into legal language, but that is what I understood them to mean. If it is proved that the meaning is not what I supposed, the Government could have brought forward an Amendment to clear up all the difficulties.
I have not the slightest objection to mitigating the provisions if the conditions have been too harsh and have proved to be a deterrent. In such a case, there was no reason why the Government should not have moved an Amendment on those lines. However, they propose that from now on people can not only get a grant, but, two or three days afterwards, can sell the grant and go off with the cash.
There is something fundamentally wrong with that. I have a similar case in mind which is nothing to do with the subject we are now discussing. If Government money is granted for the renovation and restoration of property, the person who receives those benefits should not immediately be able to cash in on them and be able to find someone to pay him not only for the property but for the grant as well, thus getting the cash both ways.
If someone pays the seller for the improvement he has made, he should pass what he gets for the improvement back to the Government. Otherwise, it should be open to a local authority to say that the owner of property has not sold the improvement and therefore the authority does not want the money back. If the Government amended the Bill in that


sense, I could see some good reason for it, but merely to say that someone prepared to be dishonest with the Government can get away with the swag is immoral.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to the Amendment in subsection (2), the reduction of the period of twenty to ten years. One of the conditions of the standard grant is that after the work has been done a dwelling shall last for no less than fifteen years. It is thus illogical to attach conditions to the grant which continue for twenty years.
Apart from that, we have now had some experience of improvement grants and all the indications are that twenty years was too long and acted as a deterrent. Certainly ten years is less of a deterrent than twenty years. It may be asked why we should have ten years and not fifteen or twelve years, or some other period. We are anxious—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)—to have Scottish grants on principles similar to those in England and Wales; and we have suggested a period of ten years for exactly the same reasons as those which led to the use of ten years in the English legislation. We want as much improvement as we can get, and we think that ten years is the right period and that twenty years acts as a deterrent, since such a period is too long.

Mr. Willis: Why not have fifteen years, the same as the standard grants?

Mr. Browne: The period is ten years, whether it is in respect of an improvement or a standard grant.
The hon. Member complained that the words referring to the owner or tenant had been taken out and what he referred to as jargon put in their place.

Mr. Willis: Coining a word from an hon. Member opposite, I said that it was a garrulous subsection.

Mr. Browne: I will not put words into my hon. Friend's mouth. It may be that he used them, and it may be that he did not. In Scotland it is now a condition that if a house is to qualify for the improvement grant it must not be occupied except by the owner or the

tenant. As the hon. Member may not realise, this is a very much more restrictive condition than is now enforced in England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: We are not concerned with England and Wales.

Mr. Browne: Oh, yes, we are trying to bring these matters into line. I do not see why conditions in Scotland should be more restrictive than they are in England. We want improvements in Scotland just as much as in England. In England and Wales a house may be occupied by a member of the owner's family or a person who, on the death of the owner, has obtained the owner's interest in the house or in the proceeds of its sale. There is no good reason for the difference, and the purpose of the new paragraph is to bring the conditions into line with those of England and Wales.
Paragraphs (b, i) and (b, ii) are designed to give Scotland the same conditions as already exist in England and Wales, and paragraph (b, iii) adds for Scotland the same conditions as have been added in Clause 11 (3) in respect of England and Wales. This permits the occupation of an improved house, without breach of the conditions, after three years from the date on which the conditions begin to apply, by a person who has become beneficially entitled to the applicant's interest in the property. That means, principally, the person who buys the property from the applicant.
Hon. Members know that we do not slavishly follow England and Wales in all our legislation, but we feel that we are right in this case to make parallel arrangements in the two countries. Furthermore, people change their jobs, and I do not think that we should unnecessarily restrict them in changing their homes.
Now I come to the question of voluntary alienation. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) stated correctly what alienation was. The definition is in Section 126 of the 1950 Act, and I will read it. Voluntary alienation includes:
alienation by sale, gift, or other transaction or transactions whereby the right or interest of the owner is transferred to another person, and the granting of a lease for a period of


thirty years or upwards, but does not include a transfer by operation of law.
This voluntary alienation provision, as my hon. Friend said, is applicable to Scotland and not elsewhere, and has always been a very sore point with Scottish owners, who feel that they are unjustly penalised. We have had continual representations from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and similar interests.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather from what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said that some people have been making use of this provision. Can he give us an example of anybody who was penalised by this provision in the existing Act who did not sell not only the property but the Government grant part of the property? Is there any reason why, if such a person grumbles because he is not allowed to do that, any sympathy should be extended to him by hon. Members?

Mr. Browne: He was in a much worse position than a man who had improved a house in England or Wales, and I have never understood why that should be. But if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will develop my argument. I said we had had representations from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and also we have had representations from the Association of County Councils.

Mr. Ross: Have there been any from the tenants?

Mr. Browne: No, but from the Association of County Councils which made representations at the end of 1957 or the beginning of 1958—I have the letter before me.
When in 1949 the Bill was introduced which later became the Housing (Scotland) Act, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) incorporated into it this set of stringent conditions which we are now abolishing in order to bring the position in Scotland into line with that of England. The right hon. Gentleman introduced voluntary alienation, and that we also wish to dispose of. I desire to be fair about this. It has been a most interesting point to consider. During the Committee stage of that Bill there was no great battle over the question of voluntary alienation. The late Mr. Walter Elliot

moved an Amendment to delete voluntary alienation, but he withdrew it after a short discussion. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire felt that, without the voluntary alienation provision, there might be a danger of too much exploitation of the then housing shortage.
Things at that time were very bad. They are still bad in some parts of the country but since then Scotland has built about 300,000 houses and provided homes for nearly one-third of the population. We believe that the disadvantages have long outweighed the advantages. I agree that it is difficult to provide clear evidence on this point but we are reasonably satisfied that voluntary alienation has a deterrent effect on the use made of grants—

Mr. Woodburn: How can the hon. Gentleman justify the selling of money given by the Government in the form of a grant? Suppose a man receives a grant by which his house is improved and then he sells the house within a year. Suppose the house is worth £500 before the receipt of the grant and becomes worth £1,000 when the improvements have been carried out. We should not mind the owner selling the house for £500, but how can the hon. Gentleman justify giving such an owner £500 of Government money which would enable him to improve the house sufficiently to sell it for £1,000?

Mr. Browne: If the House is sold to someone other than a person coming within the categories mentioned in subsection (3, b (i)) or (ii), the owner cannot sell for three years. If the purchaser cannot live in the property himself, he must let it at a controlled rental for the remainder of the ten-year period. So that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct in what he says.
I was about to conclude by reading what the late Walter Elliot said during the Committee stage in 1949.
I am afraid that the ingenuity of our people is so great that we set ourselves to hedge and guard against any possible loophole of evasion to such an extent that we wall ourselves up in a airtight chamber in which we subsequently expire. We have had experience of that under the rating system, by which it was desired to pass a certain amount of burden to owners.
Finally he said this, which, in the event, has proved right.
I say that the danger that a house occasionally may become vacant and be sold at a


greater price is so distant and remote that I think the slow-up of this Measure, which will be caused by guarding against that, will be far greater than the advantage that can be obtained by guarding against what is a very distant contingency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 26th May, 1949; c. 2713–4.]
That may not have been right when it was said, but it is certainly so today.

9.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary's speech shows that he is completely willing to be a lackey of the English Minister of Housing and Local Government. Time after time he said that these changes were being made in this part of the Bill because they had been made in the English part. That is the very weakest reason he could give to any Scottish Member and to the Scottish people who are interested in this matter.
There is something even worse than that. In the information that he let slip, the hon. Gentleman has also shown that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are willing to be the lackeys of the Scottish landlords' representatives. To tell us that they have had representations from this organisation—and we all know something about this organisation—as a result of which these Amendments were made to the 1950 Act, shows that this Government, far from being concerned with improving Scotland's shocking housing conditions, is much more concerned with ensuring that there are profits for the landlords.
What does voluntary alienation mean to the ordinary man and woman in the street? In the main, it means that a man is to be allowed to sell a house after he has had a substantial grant—not a loan—from the local authority. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), when Secretary of State, did the correct thing when he said in the 1950 Act that not only would a certain part of the money have to be returned, depending on how long previously the grant had been made, but that compound interest would also have to be paid.
What do we now find? This Government says, "Oh, no, we shall get rid of that provision, because the Scottish landlords' representatives have asked us to do so." What about the Scottish local authorities? Whose money is it that the landlords will get? It is public money—

the money of the Scottish local authorities. This Government, which pretends to look after the public interest, which time and time again has said in Scotland and all over Britain how careful they would be of public money, are ready to squander it on the landlords in Scotland.
I should like to have referred to many more matters, but I know that my hon. Friends are very keen to show their resentment of these provisions and, since we cannot get the Minister to accept any of our Amendments, we have decided that we must vote for them in the Division Lobby.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I must answer the hon. Lady. I am quite unashamed— [Interruption.]I am prepared to follow England if it is wise to do so. The hon. Lady, presumably, would not do so even if it were the wise thing. Again, she said that we are the lackeys of the landlords and asked about the local authorities, whose ratepayers are involved. I will read two brief sentences from a letter dated 22nd February, 1958, from the Association of County Councils of Scotland. It reads:
I am to advise you that this Association desires to make the following submissions, namely; (a) The conditions attaching to improvement grants in Scotland should broadly be assimilated to those applicable in England and Wales under the corresponding Housing Act, 1949."—
that is subsection (3)—
(b)"This would mean that the reference to 'voluntary' alienation in Sections 114 and 126 of the Housing (Scotland) Act. 1950. should be deleted.
That is subsection (4).

Miss Herbison: At one point in the Bill we are told that the local authorities have a duty put on them, but this Government decide that the local authorities are not to be allowed to make up their own minds about these grants. Now. the Minister says that this letter has been received. We on this side of the Committee, despite any letter that has come from the Scottish County Councils Association, will be very careful to safeguard the ratepayers' and the taxpayers' money in this country, and it is only by adhering to these Amendments and voting for them that we shall have the chance of doing that under this Government.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary was careful to make a quota-


tion from the Scottish County Councils Association, which represents the Tory-controlled local authorities in Scotland. He was very careful not to tell us what was the view of the Convention of Royal Burghs or of the Cities, which are the

authorities that represent at least nine-tenths of the houses likely to be improved under the terms of this Clause.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 138.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[9.21 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Neave, Airey


Altken, W. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Green, A.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Arbuthnot, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, R. G.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peel, W. J.


Balniel, Lord
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Barter, John
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pott, H. P.


Batsford, Brian
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Baiter, Sir Beverley
Holt, A. F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hornby, R. P.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Redmayne, M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bingham, R. M.
Howard, John (Test)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bishop, F. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Russell, R. S.


Body, R. F.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Sharples, R. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, MichaelClark (E'b'gh, S.)
Shepherd, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Brooman-White, R. C.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Speir, R. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Stevens, Geoffrey


Burden, F. F. A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, J. A.
Storey, S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, P. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Leburn, W. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Teeling, W.


Cunningham, Knox
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Temple, John M.



Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dance, J. C. G.
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Davidson, Viscountess
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


de Ferrantl, Basil
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Duncan, Sir James
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wall, Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Freeth, Denzil
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webster, David


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Douglas
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mathew, R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mawby, R. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Phillip
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Woollam, John Victor


Gower, H. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Graham, Sir Fergus
Nabarro, G. D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Crossman, R. H. S.


Ainsley, J. W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Delargy, H. J.


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edelman, M.


Beswick, Frank
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blackburn, F.
Cliffe, Michael
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Boardman, H.
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)


Boyd, T. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)




Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
MacDermot, Niall
Ross, William


Gibson, C. W.
McInnes, J.
Royle, C.


Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Short, E. W.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mahon, Simon
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sparks, J. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holmes, Horace
Mort, D. L.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, F. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Thornton, E.


Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Usborne, H. C.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parker, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pentland, N.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
Willey, Frederick


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Prentice, R. E,
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


King, Dr. H. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lawson, G. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, A. R.
Winterbottom, Richard


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, Arthur
Randall, H. E.
Woof, R. E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Logan, D. G.
Reynolds, G. W.



Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 14. line 27, after "thereof" to insert:
or by a member of the family of such a person".
This Amendment extends to a member of the family of anyone acquiring interest in property on the death of the applicant the same rights as are given under sub-paragraph (iii) to a member of the family who acquires an interest

after three years. This is logical and fair.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—[Miss Her hi son.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169. Noes 139.

Division No. 49.]
AYES
[9.31 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gurden, Harold


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Corfield, F. V.
Heald Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Arbuthnot, John
Cunningham, Knox
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Barlow, Sir John
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Barter, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Holt, A. F.


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, R. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Drayson, G. B.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, John (Test)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N e'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral J.


Bingham, R. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Body, R. F.
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fletcher-Coolie, C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Freeth, Denzil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Burden, F. F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, H. R.
Kershaw, J. A,


Channon, H. P. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kirk, P. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Lambton, Viscount


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Leburn, W. G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Green, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.




Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Page, R. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Maj, Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peel, W. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Longden, Gilbert
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Teeling, W.


Loveys, Walter H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Temple, John M.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Pott, H. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Redmayne, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharples, R. C.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, William
Wall, Patrick


Marshall, Douglas
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Mathew, R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mawby, R. L.
Speir, R. M.
Webster, David


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Woollam, John Victor


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.



Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr Bryan and Mr J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, N.


Ainsley, J. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Glouestershire, W.)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, A. R.


Beswick, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Boardman, H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Rankin, John


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyd, T. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington. N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Lawson, G. M.
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Coldrick, W.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Delargy, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Usborne, H. C.


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Warbey, W. N.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mayhew, C. P.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
Woof, R. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hannan, W.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 29.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, to leave out "Section four" and to insert" Sections four and five".
We are concerned here with the question of what houses shall be taken to be unfit for human habitation. We are told by the Bill to apply the well-known definition of standard of fitness which is now Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957. I need not go into it in detail, but we seek to add Section 5 because in that Section there are other houses which, for the purpose of the Act—and the language is the same for both Sections—shall be deemed unfit for human habitation. These are back-to-back houses which still exist in comparatively large numbers in many towns.
If the Minister has excluded houses which are unfit for other reasons, there appears to be no reason why these houses should not also be excluded. I take it that the reason which has induced him to exclude unfit houses is that they are those in respect of which the housing subsidy for the building of council houses for general need ought to be restored and they ought to be replaced by new houses built under the auspices of a Tory Government.
I call attention to the fact that Section 4 does not really deal with matters which can be put right by improvement grants and the like. It deals, as does Section 5, with purely structural matters. For instance, one of the conditions which may make a house unfit for human habitation, though it may be fit in other respects, is that it is unstable or that the natural lighting is insufficient. Certainly, instability and, in many cases, natural lighting are not matters which will be made any better by an improvement grant or a standard grant. If the view is taken, I think rightly, that in these cases the standard grants ought not to apply, that must be the case equally with back-to-back houses.
There is another point. We should all like to see back to-back houses improved if they were capable of proper treatment. Section 5 recognises that they are unfit for human habitation and must be replaced. Therefore, the moral to the Government in this case is, on the one hand, to accept the Amendment and, on the other, to reintroduce the housing subsidy and get more houses built for general need.

Mr. Bevins: Perhaps I can help the Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on this point. First, Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1957, which is a consolidation Measure and goes back a long time in most of its provisions, prohibits the building of back-to-back houses after certain dates, and it provides that any such houses which were built after those dates—and the date is generally December, 1909—shall be deemed unfit for human habitation. But the Section does not make a back-to-back house built before December, 1909, unfit by that reason. To determine whether a back-to-back house put up before 1909 is unfit or not, it is necessary to fall back on Section 4 of the 1957 Act which defines unfitness.
9.45 p.m.
The reference to Section 4 in subsection (2) of Clause 29 of this Bill is necessary only for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 13, which refer to unfitness for human habitation. Since grants in respect of standard amenities can be made only for existing houses, I submit to the Committee that Section 5, as distinct from Section 4, of the Housing Act, 1957, can have no possible relationship to the Bill or to the matter which is under discussion.
May I add that it is commonly thought by hon. Members here and by the public outside that Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1957, means that any back-to-back house is, by definition, unfit. I am assured on the best authority I can get that this belief is unfounded. For those reasons, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press an Amendment which, in the circumstances of the case, is unnecessary.

Mr. Mitchison: I find that explanation both tortuous and unconvincing. It is true that there is a question of date involved, and it was simply to save the time of the Committee that I did not bring that in. The language of Section 5 is clear. Back-to-back houses which fall within the date requirement and are—
… intended to be used as dwellings for the working classes"—
are to be deemed to be unfit for human habitation.
That is exactly the language used in relation to other houses in Section 4, and I see no ground for drawing a distinction between the two types of house. I fail to understand the explanation that Section


5 can have nothing to do with the Bill. Of course it has nothing to do with the Bill at present, because it is not mentioned. The object of the Amendment is to treat alike all houses which are unfit for human habitation. That simple, logical conclusion does not appear to appeal to the Government, and in the circumstances we shall no doubt see what happens when the Question is put.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(OBLIGATION OF LESSORS RECEIVING STANDARD GRANTS AND APPLICATION TO TIED DWELLINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).)

(1) During a period of fifteen years after the making of a standard grant under this Part of this Act to a person in respect of a dwelling, section six of the Housing Act, 1957, (which prescribes conditions to be implied on the letting of small houses), shall apply to any contract for letting that dwelling or any part thereof, being a letting by that person, his successor in title or a person deriving title from the first-named person or his successor, as that section applies to the contracts mentioned in its subsection (1).

(2) Where under a contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture the provision of a dwelling for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, and the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling not being let to him, section seven of the Housing Act, 1957, (which applies section six of the said Act to houses occupied by agricultural workers otherwise than as tenants) shall have effect in relation to that dwelling and to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection as it has effect in relation to such a house as is mentioned in that section and to the provisions of the said section six of that Act.— [Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: As the first two proposed Clauses deal with the same point, I suggest that this and the next Clause, which relates to Scotland should be discussed together, and we can have two Divisions if necessary.

Mr. Mitchison: I respectfully agree, Sir Charles, that these two proposed Clauses raise the same point. It is an important one and we regret that it should not have been possible to bring this within the framework of the Bill to allow for an earlier discussion, and possibly a more combative decision.
The object of the proposed Clause is to give to any house which receives a standard grant the same conditions as regards repair as apply already to what are commonly called small houses. Those conditions impose on the landlord, notwithstanding any agreement, an obligation to do certain elementary repairs to the house and to keep it up to what, on the strength of a series of decisions, is not really a very high standard. It is now the condition of fitness in Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957.
I trust that the Committee will bear in mind that the applicant for these grants, standard or improvement, has to be a person who has either a freehold of the house or, at any rate, a leasehold interest of fifteen years or more. Therefore, no casual tenant, be is a weekly tenant or one on short lease, can get the benefit of these grants. It is the landlord who gets the benefit of them. The landlord is under an obligation, in terms of the Bill, to have the house up to a standard of fitness. That is the standard of fitness in this case. As between him and the tenant, so far as I have been able to discover, there is no obligation that the landlord should pay for the maintenance of that house in that condition. Unless some provision of this sort is put into the Bill, the maintenance of the house may very well be cast entirely upon the tenant. I mean no elaborate maintenance, but maintenance to an elementary standard of fitness.
The Committee will be well aware of what is happening at present in many parts of London and elsewhere, particularly in the large towns. Landlords, being now able to evict the tenants who are no longer rent controlled, are able to impose stringent conditions and liabilities as to repair on the tenants. It is becoming more and more true that the somewhat scant protection afforded in England by Section 6 of the Housing Act, 1957, and by corresponding legal provisions in Scotland, is the tenant's last and only resort against having to pay for all repairs himself. That applies only to small houses and to rather complicated provisions in relation to the date of the contract of letting.
Leaving out the time of the contract of letting for the moment, roughly speaking the houses concerned are those let at a


rent of not more than £40 in London, £26 in the larger boroughs and urban districts and £16 in other parts of the country. Those are small houses, and more so nowadays than at the time when this provision was first imposed, though with different figures, or even at the time when the Housing Act, 1957, was passed, which was roughly the same time as the Rent Act, and before the Rent Act had its full effect in raising rent and imposing harsher conditions on tenants throughout all the larger towns. Consequently, there will be very many houses, probably most of the houses in respect of which application will be made for standard grants, which will not be within these provisions.
Moreover, they suffer from one other defect, which is common to all provisions of this kind. They draw a hard and sharp line at one particular rent, with the result that a person paying a rent of £39 10s. will be protected by them, but a person paying a rent of £40 10s.—I am giving the London figures—will not. Surely it is right that any landlord or other owner who gets the benefit of these improvement grants or standard grants should, after that, have to take on the obligation of keeping the improved house in a reasonable condition.
Therefore, it is with some confidence that we put forward the English Clause. I have also mentioned the Scottish Clause about which I am sure my Scottish hon. Friends will wish to say something. We trust that it is only through one of those inadvertencies to which the most watchful Governments are occasionally prone that no provision of this sort has been made in the Bill.
If by any chance the Government were so misguided as to reject our new Clause, we should feel that this was conclusive and convincing proof that whatever else the Bill was intended to do it was certainly intended to bring good in every respect to the landlord and never to impose any obligation on him, however necessary it might be in the public interest that he should assume it.

Mr. McInnes: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has adequately covered the position, even in respect of Scotland although he concentrated largely on the position in England and Wales. There is a slight difference in respect of rental.

but the main purpose of the new Clause, as he indicated, is that the landlord shall take steps to ensure that the house will be kept in a reasonably fit condition and fit for human habitation. I do not anticipate for a moment that the Joint Under-Secretary will have any objections to a condition of that kind being incorporated in the Bill. It is a condition which existed prior to the introduction of the Bill and one which we should like to have incorporated in the Measure.

Mr. H. Brooke: Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says, the primary purpose of the Bill is to benefit houses and the people who live in them.
I have to correct him. He spoke of post-Rent Act lettings and then quoted the wrong figures. In respect of any lettings made after the Rent Act came into operation the limits are now not those which he quoted but £80 in the County of London and £52 elsewhere.
The hon. and learned Member will realise, I am sure, that under the terms of other Clauses of the Bill a house which is unfit for human habitation does not get a grant. Indeed, the local authority needs to be satisfied that it is likely to remain not unfit for human habitation during a period of not less than fifteen years. Therefore, this is not a question of whether the house will be unfit for human habitation or not. It is a question of whether we shall shift the responsibility for keeping it so fit.
As things are, Section 6 and to some extent Section 7 of the 1957 Act determined that the liability lies on the landlord for houses below certain limits which differ in England and in Scotland, and differ according to the date of the contract. It is hard for the Government to see why, if one is going to remove those limits at all, one should remove them solely for houses which have been improved with the benefit of an improvement grant. The limits were reconsidered by the Government in respect of England and Wales—it is not for me to speak of Scotland—as recently as 1957 and new limits were laid down.
That being so, I think one can accept that the limits have fairly recently been determined by Parliament and there has been no particular event since then to suggest that they need to be altered in general. If they do not need to be


altered in general, there is no ground for altering them in particular cases where a standard grant has been received.
10.0 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends argue that where the landlord has had the benefit of a grant, the responsibility for seeing that the house is not unfit for human habitation should rest exclusively on the landlord, regardless of the amount of the rent, and yet this was not a condition which they sought to impose when they were in power when the 1949 legislation was passed. There was no condition of this sort attached to the receiving of improvement grants under that legislation, and I suggest that there is no more case for doing that now than there was in 1949.

Mr. Mitchison: I accept at once the right hon. Gentleman's correction of my inadvertent error about the figures. It makes no difference whatever to the point I was putting, as he will be the first to recognise.
The fog outside seems to be paralleled by a deep and intense fog in the minds of the Government. I have rarely heard a less convincing defence of a piece of reactionary legislation. The difference between the present position and that of 1949 is that we have now had seven years of Tory Government. During that time the Rent Act has been passed and in our large towns and in some other places, too, as is well known to all hon. Members, tenants are being obliged to assume obligations about repairs which they are in no position to carry out because, unless they assume that responsibility, the landlords of this country will not allow them to live anywhere.
That is the fundamental difference between what has happened after seven years of Tory Government and what was happening even four years after the war, four years after the Labour Government had assumed office. The cogent and convincing reason for the Clause is the housing position which has been created by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors. That is the difference between now and 1949.
I turn to the provision itself. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no reason why we should impose the existing provisions relating to small houses particularly on the class of houses which will

get the benefits of standard grants. He himself quoted Clause 5 (2), which says that the local authority has to be satisfied that after the execution of the works in aid of which the standard grant is made, the house is not unfit for human habitation and is likely to remain in that condition and available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years.
There is therefore imposed as a condition of the grant the likelihood that the house will remain in that condition. The question is, if repairs are required to maintain that condition during those years, who is to pay for them? It occurs to the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is utterly unreasonable to say that the man who receives the grant, a grant conditional on the house being in that condition and likely to remain so, is the person who ought to pay for keeping it in that condition.
That is what we are asking by the new Clause. It is not a new provision. It was made for small houses, and it is still there for small houses. I have little doubt that the total amount involved will not be large, because the sort of house we are considering has to be likely to remain in a fit condition for fifteen years, and some of the houses, at any rate, will be small houses and as such will attract the repair conditions applicable to small houses.
The question remains whether it is right that in the case of other houses the owners who receive a grant which is available only on condition that the houses are fit for human habitation, and are likely to remain so, should then be able to relieve themselves, in the middle of the present housing shortage, of any obligation to do repairs. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are concerned primarily with the condition of the houses. I agree that that factor is of importance, but I ask him who is more likely to be able to afford the expense of these repairs—the gentleman or the property company who has received money from the Government for improving a house, and has at least that substantial asset, or some tenant who has been obliged to take the house because the housing legislation of the Government has left him nowhere else to live, and who has been obliged to assume an


obligation for repairs which, if he had had any choice in the matter, he would never have dreamt of accepting?
I hope that the Government will wake up and realise that there is a housing shortage in this country and that some people are desperate for houses and have had to take on these repair obligations because of the Government's legislation. It is to give those people some measure of protection that we ask merely that the man who has received the benefit of a grant from public funds should at least pay for keeping his house in repair. It seems nothing short of scandalous that a Government should refuse a provision of that kind in favour of the tenant. What is the use of talking about hardship and hard cases if, whenever a real case of hardship arises, an Amendment to put it right, even upon a limited scale such as this, is contemptuously refused?

Mr. McInnes: I do not want to be fobbed off by the allegation of irrelevancy which the right hon. Gentleman tried to make against me. I am compelled to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to rise to his feet on this issue, because the position in Scotland is the same as that which has been described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The Minister of Housing and Local Government said that the Labour Government did not include these provisions in the 1949 Act, and he asked why. He should not ask that question, because he knows the answer, which is that since 1951 all Tory legislation relating to the question of housing has, peculiarly enough, furthered the interests of landlordism.
In the Clause we are simply asking that, as provided in Section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, the house will be kept by the landlord in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. What objection can the Joint Under-Secretary advance against a demand of that kind? It is a simple and reasonable one, and this work is the responsibility of the landlord. For far too long in our legislation—and we can mention the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act, the Rent Act and the Rating and Valuation Act—provisions have been introduced to put money into the pockets of the landlords. Surely there is some justification for our asking that landlordism shall face its responsibilities and shall maintain

houses in a decent and fit condition so that people may live in them.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I do not agree with the hon. Member that nothing that we have done has done other than put money into the pockets of the landlords. He will bear in mind the fact that we have enabled landlords to repair their houses for the first time for far too long. I will try briefly to give the Scottish angle on this new Clause—I am glad of the opportunity to say something about it—and I will also attempt to give my version of the cogent argument advanced by my right hon. Friend.
Under Section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, any house of a rent not exceeding £26 had to be kept by the landlord in a reasonably fit state for human habitation. When owners' rates were done away with, it brought more houses with the scope of that Section and we shall have to look at the figure of £26 again in the light of the 1961 revaluation figures. We were not able to do what was done in England about raising the figure and there may be a case for extending the provision to more houses as part of the general law; even though, as in the case of England, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not extend Section 3 to houses improved by improvement grants under the 1949 Act.
There is no point in applying Section 3 to owners of houses improved by standard grants. If there were, surely it ought to be extended to all houses. Of course improved houses have to be kept fit for human habitation. That is now the law under Section 114 (1, e) of the 1950 Act, which is extended to standard grants by Clause 22 of this Bill. We think it right —I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree—to leave it to the conditions of the tenancy in individual cases to determine who is responsible for keeping the property fit, rather than put the responsibility in every case on the owner, as that may prove most unwise.

Mr. MacColl: I must join issue with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on one matter. He said he had never heard, or did not recollect hearing, a lamer explanation than that offered by the right hon. Gentleman. He gave the impression to those hon. Members who do not know of the assidious way in which he applies himself to his duties, that he must have


been asleep during the proceedings in the Standing Committee, where we wallowed in the gruesome cesspools of sophistry. I do not claim to be a connoisseur in these matters, but I doubt whether the explanation of the Minister today compares with any which we had the advantage of hearing during the Committee stage discussions.
It is clear that the one person who comes out of this badly, and who has no kind of safeguard, is the tenant. He cannot apply for a grant; he cannot compel the landlord to do so. The local authority cannot compel a landlord to apply for a grant, but if he chooses to apply, the local authority can resist the application. Is it unreasonable, therefore, to ask that the landlord—who gets all these advantages, and in ten years' time has an improved house from which he can evict a tenant who has no security of tenure and can sell the house—should undertake the obligation of keeping the house fit to live in? That is all that this amounts to.
It is not a question of making a house fit for human habitation as a condition of making a grant, but of keeping it fit for human habitation. We do not say that this shall apply to all houses. I would not mind if it did, but we are not discussing that at the moment, and it would not be in order to do so.
10.15 p.m.
What is in order is to say that if we are to compel local authorities to spend ratepayers' and taxpayers' money for the benefit of the landlord, to whom the ultimate capital appreciation will accrue, the least we can expect of him is that he shall take upon himself responsibility of keeping the house in a condition fit to live in.
That is a fairly humble standard—no one pretends Chat it is a very (high one—but it is the standard that has been thought worth While to keep in the Housing Acts for many years. I should have thought that to seek to apply that standard to these houses was the absolute rock bottom of requirement that one could ask of the landlord—and it is a responsibility which they may use their bargaining power to place on the tenant. This is the only effective way, inadequate though it may be, to give some kind of safeguard to the tenant, who its seeing

knocked down, one by one, all the safeguards he has for the protection of his home.

Mr. A. Evans: I am surprised that the Minister has not looked at this from a more businesslike point of view, though we cannot expect him to shed his bias in favour of property owners all at once. We all wish to see these houses improved, and we are all agreed that on each of them there should be spent up to £300. Before making the grant, local authorities have to satisfy themselves that the house is structurally sound and will last for fifteen years. But though so much may be spent on each house, the Minister is content to take the risk that it shall fall into disrepair. To spend £150 of public money and a similar amount of the owner's money on a house and then to fail to make provision that it shall be maintained in a fit condition for fifteen years is a most unbusinesslike attitude to adopt.
We know from experience that unless this new Clause is added to the Bill, some—probably many—of the improved houses will deteriorate as the result of the landlord's neglect. AH we ask the Minister to do is to look at these assets, these improved houses, and to agree that it is a simple business precaution to require, in the circumstances I have mentioned, that the owners shall maintain them in a fit condition. Any businessman would agree that property upon which capital has been spent should not be allowed to fall into disrepair, but apparently the Minister is reluctant, once again, to put this obligation on landlords.
In our large towns we can see that the owners of private dwellings have, over the generations, consistently allowed their property to deteriorate into slums. Our housing history shows that clearly. Now, as a result of the expenditure of public money we have a chance, at any rate with some houses, to see that deterioration does not take place, but the Minister refuses to require the landlord to maintain his own property. It is a most amazing refusal. I must say that it seems to me to be a most unbusinesslike and wasteful proceeding.

Question put and negatived.

First Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 21, line 11, at the end to insert:
and in subsection (4), the words from 'shall not be made' to 'such an advance' and the words from 'In the case' to the end of the subsection.
This is consequential on the removal of the £5,000 ceiling from the local authority advances.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 56, at end insert:
and in subsection (4), the words from 'shall not be made' to 'such an advance' and the words from 'In the case' to the end of the subsection."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Title, in line 2, to

leave out "approved" and insert "designated".
This and the next Amendment to the Title both follow upon Amendments that have been agreed to in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 3, leave out from beginning to "under" in line 4 and insert "enlarge the power of local authorities to make advances".— [Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. Mitchison: May I just say, perhaps somewhat out of order, that the absence of Divisions is closely related to the depth of the fog outside?

Bill reported with Amendments [Title Amended]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

BRITISH ARMY (MOBILE DEFENCE CORPS)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill]

10.23 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: It is more in sorrow than in anger that I raise tonight the question of the disbanding of the Mobile Defence Corps. I believe that great grief and great disappointment have been occasioned by the decision of the War Office and Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I believe also that the decision which has been taken will fundamentally prove to be a great disservice to the country.
I ask the question, who were the men who formed the Mobile Defence Corps and what did these men do? I know that they consisted of solicitors, bank managers, a bricklayer, a carpenter perhaps, and so on and so forth. In fact, they were men who were drawn from every walk of life, who were giving some sort of voluntary service to the community. I ask also tonight what was the cost of maintaining this Mobile Defence Corps, with all the cameraderie and good spirit which was engendered within its ranks? I believe that the cost must have been extremely small, and that, in the whole cost of defence, the amount which the Mobile Defence Corps cost public funds must have been what the Americans would have called "peanuts."
What will happen to these men? Some of them, perhaps, were too old or had too many commitments for them to give greater time and service to the Territorial Army, but they were men who were brought up in the traditions of the Territorial Army and who wished to continue some sort of voluntary service. They had an urge, as it were, to do good for their fellow human beings. They were men who had, perhaps, served in one or even two wars, who were prepared to go on serving in this very worthy cause of the Mobile Defence Corps.
At the other end of the scale, there were the National Service men, young men who had completed their National Service but who wanted to continue, in some form or other, their military or part-military training, men who wanted to do something for their country in their

spare time, but whose commitments, perhaps as young men starting in business or in the professions, meant that they were unable to give sufficient time to continue in the Territorial Army. The Mobile Defence Corps met the desires of men of that type, men who were prepared and were able to give as much time as they could, but who were not able to give as much time as the old pre-war. Territorial soldier gave before the war.
I went to watch a two-day exercise which took place on a Saturday and Sunday in Sussex, and I saw these men doing their work. They were as keen and enthusiastic as any men could possibly be. I watched them, and I heard that on the Saturday and Sunday they worked very hard. On the Saturday evening, there was great camaraderie in their get-together, the spirit which they knew when they were serving in the Army. Their wives were keen to give them all the support and help they possibly could in the voluntary service they were giving. On the Saturday evening, the men met together with their wives, and, during the rest of that Saturday and Sunday, they worked hard on the job required of them. Coming back to London after watching that exercise, I could not help comparing what I had seen with the long queue of "Teddy boys" and others waiting for the cinemas to open—men who were giving no voluntary service to the community whatever.
It may be said that the Civil Defence Corps will do everything that the Mobile Defence Corps could do, and that all these men have to do is to transfer their allegiance to the Civil Defence Corps. I do not believe that that is the right answer at all. I believe that the Mobile Defence Corps would have been able to turn its weight to almost any job in time of emergency. May no emergency ever arise again; but, had an emergency arisen, the Mobile Defence Corps, with the spirit of friendship and service which those men had shown, would have proved itself very useful, and the country would have seen once again that this kind of man was the salt of the earth.
We are in danger of killing the spirit of voluntary service in our country. There used to be people who helped in voluntary hospital work and other activities. Then the hospitals were taken over by


the State and much voluntary service was killed. There are today very few things to which people can really devote their energy and in which they can give worthwhile voluntary service. The Mobile Defence Corps was doing that, and at very small cost to the nation. The decision to disband the Corps is a great disservice to the country. The country will lose from the fact that these men have had all their initiative, enterprise and enthusiasm killed, and I hope very much that even at this late stage the Government will change their mind.

10.31 p.m.

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: I wish to associate myself with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has uttered. If we are to have the Hi-bomb as a deterrent in this country we have also got to be prepared for defence against the H-bomb. We shall have to have not only an active defence, which can be provided for us by the R.A.F., but a passive defence which can be provided not only by civil defence but by the Army units stationed in this country.
Civil defence is organised on a local authority basis and, therefore, it is not mobile and is not 100 per cent. efficient. When we had the Mobile Defence Corps we had a mobile disciplined organisation which could go quickly to the rescue and be a reserve force for the civil defence organisation. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for War will tell us that the Territorial Army units are nominated to replace the Mobile Defence Corps in their liaison with civil defence and in providing first-aid treatment one year in four in Territorial training. I hope that that one year when the Territorial units have to do civil defence and first-aid will not be a black year when the annual camps are unpopular and badly attended.
It is not advantageous to have liaison with the civil defence authorities only one year in four. It must be frequent enough to be efficient. I remember that in the Territorial Army for many years first-aid training was at a very low state. In the Mobile Defence Corps it was extremely high and I cannot see how we can improve much in the Territorial Army if the work of the Mobile Defence corps is only to be done by the Territorials one year in every four.
The Mobile Defence Corps utilised men in rather a valuable age group, from 35 to 55 years of age. The Territorial Army seems to attract men more from the 20 to 40 age group. There are many men, as my hon. Friend has said, who were prepared to serve Her Majesty in the Mobile Defence Corps but who are not prepared to serve a local authority in the civil defence organisation. Therefore, the disbanding of these units has meant a considerable loss of manpower to our forces.
I, like my hon. Friend, have seen some of these Mobile Defence Corps exercises and I must say that I have been very impressed by their training and tradition, and the way in which they liaise so successfully with the local authorities and the civil defence organisation. I believe that that tradition, efficiency and wonderful liaison which existed has got to be retained somehow at the same level by the Territorial Army, and I do not believe it is possible for the Territorial Army to do it if the men do civil defence liaison only one year in every four.
I should have thought that a much better way was by allocating one company of each Territorial battalion or one battery of each Territorial regiment which could be permanently allocated to civil defence duties. Such companies or batteries could use men of a higher age group, they could be rapidly expanded if there were mobilisation, they could cooperate continuously with civil defence all through the year, and they could mobilise outside target areas and not in the big cities such as Leeds and Bradford where most of our Territorial units in Yorkshire have their headquarters.
We think it terribly important that the War Office and all our staff officers, and especially our Regular Army officers, should realise that unless the Army is fully prepared to play its part in cooperation with civil defence in what may be a battle for survival, there may never be a chance for the field forces to mobilise and no chance whatever for the forces to fight in the field.
I have the very greatest admiration for the loyalty, devotion and work done by the Mobile Defence Corps. I think it was beyond praise. I know that we live in changing times, in times of transition, and that one ought not to be opposed to new methods, new units, new formations


and new rôles, but I hope that the Under-Secretary is not only of the opinion but absolutely convinced that the change is a change for the better and not for the worse.

10.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) for having raised the question of the Mobile Defence Corps this evening, especially as it gives me an opportunity to express the great appreciation and gratitude of the War Office for the services performed by the Corps. That appreciation, of course, has already been recorded by the Chief of the General Staff and by others at the War Office, but 1 think it only proper—and I am pleased to have this opportunity of doing so—to express the views of myself and of the War Office.
We realise, of course, that it is galling to those people who in a high spirit of public service have volunteered for the Mobile Defence Corps. It is especially galling when one realises that quite a few of these volunteers were people who had already suffered the abolition of Anti-Aircraft Command and the standing down of the Home Guard. But let me say at once that the reason for disbanding the Mobile Defence Corps is not because of the failure of the Corps in any way. Indeed, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) so rightly said, it is essential that the whole Army should understand the question of civil defence and co-operation with the civil authorities.
I am sure that all those concerned at the War Office would agree that the Corps has been of immense importance in its short three years of existence, first, in producing new techniques for heavy rescue and casualty clearance, and, secondly, for building up a most valuable code of collaboration between the civil powers and the military. These three years have not in any way been wasted. Indeed, the teaching of the Army today, both the Regular and the Territorial Army, is based largely on the experience, expertise and wisdom put into its work by this Corps.
The reason for the abolition of the Mobile Defence Corps is simply that now we propose to end National Service. This

is the simple and basic fact. The Mobile Defence Corps was an amalgam of volunteers and of National Service men, and it flows inevitably from our decision, which I am sure is the right decision, that if we are to have a purely Regular Army, then automatically the National Service people will not be available.
As hon. Members will recall, thirty-six Mobile Defence Corps battalions were to be formed in the Army Emergency Reserve. Thirty-three were formed up to the end of 1958, and of the 14,000 or so men enrolled less than 15 per cent. were volunteers. It was clear, therefore, that with the ending of National Service this essential rô1e would have to be taken over by some other body. This was made even more necessary by the fact that from 1956 onwards, as National Service men on the Reserve ceased to attend camps, it was impossible, except in exceptional cases or in units of exceptional efficiency, to gather together a whole battalion or even a majority of a battalion for training.
Of course, various suggestions have been put forward on what should have been done, including the thought expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon, that detachments, such as companies or troops of the Mobile Defence Corps battalions, should be absorbed into the Territorial Army. My department has given very serious consideration to this suggestion that members of the Mobile Defence Corps should, so to speak, be transferred as specialist soldiers to the Territorial Army battalions or regiments. This course has been rejected, first on the ground of the difficulty of training—my hon. and gallant Friend, as a commander of a Territorial unit, will be fully aware of the problems of individual drill halls in some areas—and, secondly, because the Territorial Army as such must be prepared to deal with home defence in all its aspects.
For similar reasons the possibility of transferring all the Mobile Defence Corps battalions to the Territorial Army was rejected.
The only other answer, I believe—and this is the one which we have adopted—was that the Territorial Army should add a specialisation in Civil Defence to its already existing rôle.
Accordingly, as announced in the House on 3rd December of last year,


field artillery and infantry units will be given advanced training in Civil Defence techniques. This will be in addition to the light rescue and first-aid instruction which all Regular and Territorial Army units include in their normal training.
I know my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon says that sufficient attention has not been paid in the past to these vital rôles, and I am sure that he speaks with immense knowledge, both of the Medical Corps and of the Army as a whole. But I believe that now, faced as we are by the huge variety of problems and threats, the Army is resolved, from the top to the lower organisations to see that the vital matter of rescue and other functions which have to be performed are an essential and main part of its work. The proposal to train Territorial Army units in this special rôle of civil defence will cover nearly all units in the Territorial Army, apart from those with an immediate overseas rôle. They will be trained in what is best described as heavy rescue work.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon pointed out, the Territorial Army training is divided into a four-year cycle. Each unit will, in rotation, be allotted in one of these years' to civil defence training. This year, 25 Territorial units will be undergoing this training, and next year the number will be not less than 33. This will mean that units undergo this training once every four years.
My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that this would not be sufficient. I agree that he has made a case and I will certainly look into it to ensure that the four-year cycle includes refresher courses. When, however, we have this general concentration on these great problems, plus a two weeks' camp in one of the civil defence training centres, such as Millom, in Cumberland, or Epsom, and refresher courses in addition, I believe that the Territorial Army will be more than able to play its part in civil defence. I think that on the whole, the House will agree that this is the best solution.
The maximum number of men we could have trained under the Mobile Defence Corps would have been 29,500. Under the proposed dispensation, we will be training nearly three times as many men in this vital rôle.
I believe it to be better also from the general point of view of civil defence. It will mean greater flexibility for civilian regional directors and for the Commander-in-Chief designate of the United Kingdom Land Forces, who will have under him more versatile troops capable of meeting the wide range of vicissitudes, and combinations and permutations thereof, which it may be his or their lot to repel in the event of massive high explosive or atomic bombardment.
From the point of organisation also, 1 believe this system to be preferable. By its very territorial nature, the Territorial Army is less subject to total disruption and is also well provided with its own wireless and vehicle organisations. In this connection, I should tell the House that the task of the medical sections of the Mobile Defence Corps battalions will now be taken over by the Territorial Army divisional field ambulances. These will be backed to the fullest possible extent by the divisional transport companies. It is fair to say that we believe this to be the most efficient organisation and that it is in any case a reorganisation imposed upon us by the ending of National Service.
Both of my hon. Friends have raised the question of what happens to ex-members of the mobile Defence Corps, who in the last three or four years have gained valuable experience. As I have said, this experience will be utilised in the training programmes which we propose for the Territorial Army. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne pointed out, however, there is here an important personal problem.
Whilst National Service personnel remain on call, they will be earmarked for mobilisation to Territorial Army units with this special rôle. As both my hon. Friends have said, however, the problem of volunteers is more complicated. Some 2,000 officers and other ranks have volunteered for this service. There are two types of national service in which they could well be engaged. First, there is the Territorial Army, and I am glad to say that already forty-four officers have asked for transfer to this army. Secondly, there is the civil defence organisation. Whatever my hon. Friends may say, that is one of the most necessary and important armies in the country. There the skill and expertise of these men will be of immense value. We have,


accordingly, tried to get in contact with each individual and put forward these two possibilities.
I should like to conclude on a note both of sympathy and of hope. As for sympathy, for the Regular Army and for the Territorial Army, this period of the last ten years has been most difficult. There have been inevitable disappointments as we have tried to meet the challenges of the immediate future and the anticipation of technical and revolutionary changes in warfare. These disappointments have, on the whole, been received stoically, and the decisions taken have been loyally accepted.
Now I think that we are beginning to see the emergence of a pattern of defence abroad and at home which is really efficient and which, by 1962, will be based entirely on the principle of voluntary service. Already, the Territorial Army is more than 100,000 strong, and it is growing. I believe that, in giving it this new rôle so vital to us all, we can be assured that the Territorial Army will take it in its ample stride.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.